SUVIR SEHGAL J.
1. This order shall dispose of the above noted two appeals.
2. For the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from RSA1606-1993.
3. State-defendants are in second appeal before this Court challenging the findings recorded by both the Courts below.
4. Brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that plaintiffrespondent, who was posted a Sub-Divisional Engineer, was placed under suspension on 18.07.1979 and departmental proceedings were initiated against him. On the basis of the enquiry report, impugned order bearing endorsement dated 01.09.1987 for recovery of Rs.68,449/- was passed and he was reverted to the post of Junior Engineer. Challenging both the orders, he filed a civil suit for permanent injunction.
5. Upon notice, suit was contested by the defendants by raising various preliminary objections and on merits it was submitted that the plaintiff had defrauded the Government in connivance with junior staff by preparing of fictitious Muster Rolls etc. He was charge-sheeted and was found guilty in the departmental enquiry resulting in passing of the punishment orders. Plaintiff filed a replication reasserting the pleas taken in the plaint. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed and after they led evidence, Trial Court by judgment and decree dated 27.08.1991, declared both the orders to be illegal and void as also restrained the defendants from effective recovery from the plaintiff until an enquiry was held against him in accordance with law. Both the plaintiff and defendants filed separate appeals. Vide judgment dated 27.03.1993, learned Additional District Judge, Hisar, dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants and in the appeal preferred by the plaintiff, the First Appellate Court struck down the liberty granted to the defendants to hold a legal enquiry. It is in this backdrop that the State-defendant is in appeal before this Court.
6. I have heard the State counsel and examined the record with his able assistance.
7. Both the Courts have returned a concurrent finding that the departmental enquiry held against the plaintiff is violative of the principles of natural justice. It has been found that no witness was produced by either of the parties on the basis of the documents and statement of the Presenting Officer, who was not permitted to be cross-examined, enquiry report was prepared. It was held that enquiry was based on no evidence. It was also found by both the Courts that the defendants did not produce the file of enquiry proceedings and rather produced xerox copies of some documents, which were never exhibited. Finding that there was a breach of Rule 7 of the erstwhile Punjab Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952, the Courts found that the punishment orders based on the findings of such an enquiry could not be sustained. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below as no material could be referred to by the State counsel to dispel the findings.
8. At this stage, State counsel submits that the trial court vide its judgment and decree has given liberty to the State to hold a fresh enquiry, which has been struck down by the First Appellate Court. He has requested that this right be given to the appellant.
9. I have considered the submissions made by the State counsel.
10. Perusal of the paper-book of the instant appeal shows that an application for stay of the impugned judgment and decree was moved before this Court, which was specifically rejected. Appeal has remained pending before this Court for the last more than three decades. Plaintiff may have retired in the interregnum on attaining the age of superannuation. This Court is of the view that at this belated stage, granting of such an opportunity to the State is not warranted and the prayer made by the State counsel is rejected.
11. There is no illegality or infirmity in the judgments passed by the Courts below. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed and with no order as to costs.
12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.