TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (5) TMI 765
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ASI Sucha Singh, HC Suraj Bhan and HC Vijay Pal for taking two Government vehicles bearing Nos. HR 22 0020 and HR 03A 7880 respectively from Chandigarh to Hyderabad (Andhra Pradesh) for repair and fitting of Jammers. HC Vijay Pal was driving one of the vehicles. He purchased 12 bottles of Indian-Made Foreign Liquor [IMFL] at Kota (Rajasthan) and concealed the consignment of the liquor in the dickey of the car without the knowledge and consent of the appellant. On checking of the vehicles by the Excise Staff of Adilabad in the State of Andhra Pradesh, 12 bottles of IMFL were recovered from the luggage boot of the car being driven by HC Vijay Pal, which gave rise to registration of a case PR No. 470/95-96 dated 31.07.1996 against HC Vijay Pal for transporting liquor in violation of prohibitory orders of the State Government. 4. The Superintendent of Police, Sonepat, - respondent No. 2 herein ordered a departmental inquiry against the appellant and HC Vijay Pal charging the appellant with improper control over his subordinates which amounts to dereliction of duties and for there lapses of indiscipline as Police Officer. The Inquiry Officer found the appellant guilty of the charge on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llant by the judgment and decree dated 21.03.2005. 10. Being aggrieved against and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the trial court, the appellant carried the matter in appeal. The learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat, dismissed the said appeal on 01.09.2005. 11. The appellant preferred Second Appeal in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which was dismissed by learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment dated 20.03.2006. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment of the High Court are extracted as under: Both the Courts below have concurrently held that the order of punishment had been passed against the plaintiff after the due procedure had been followed by the department in conformity with the rules applicable to the plaintiff. It has also been held that principles of natural justice were also adhered to. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the trial court. The appeal filed by the plaintiff also failed before the learned First Appellate Court. It is well-settled that the Civil Court cannot sit in appeal over the departmental proceedings or an order of punishment passed by the punishing authority. Shri Jai Vir Yadav, learned Cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the show-cause notice, imposed punishment of stoppage of two annual future increments with permanent effect upon the appellant. The appellate authority as well as the revisional authority both have concurred with the disciplinary authority and accordingly dismissed the appeal and revision respectively filed by the appellant. As noticed above, the trial court, the first Appellate Court and the High Court in Second Appeal have concurrently held that the Civil Court cannot sit in appeal over the departmental proceedings or an order of punishment passed by the punishing authority. The High Court dismissed the appeal of the appellant without framing the substantial questions of law which were raised in precise terms before it in the Memorandum of Appeal. 14. On perusal of the judgment of the court of first appeal, we find that the first appellate court has practically recorded identical reasoning and finding as stated by the trial court in its judgment and decree whereunder the suit of the appellant was dismissed. It was urged on behalf of the appellant as noticed by the first appellate court in paragraph 8 of the judgment that the appellant was discriminated by the respondents in de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tailed reply to the show-cause notice dated 18.03.1997 and in support of his defence, he filed statement of HC Vijay Pal dated 30.07.1996. A copy of the said statement has been placed on record as Annexure P-1, which reads as under: I, Vijay Pal Chaudhari S/o Madan Singh R/o not legible, Tehsil Jaggar, Distt. Rohtak Haryana states that he started journey on Government duty from Panchkula to Hyderabad on 25.07.96. I purchased [12] bottles of IML at "Quota Rajasthan" for "personal consumption" as I have to stay in Hyderabad for 15 days to attend the Govt. work. I purchased [12] bottles of IML at the rate of Rs. 80/- each bottle. I kept the above IML bottles in the dickey of the car without the knowledge of Man Singh. The said 12 bottles of IML have been recovered and seized by the Excise Officer at prohibited excise check post - ICP Bhorj on 30.07.96 at about 7.30 a.m. I am not aware about the implementation of prohibition Act in the A.P. State. Sd/- Vijay Pal Choudhari 30.07.96 18. In view of the factual backdrop and the above-stated statement of HC Vijay Pal, we are of the opinion that the respondents cannot be permitted to resort to selective treatment to the appellant ....