- (1.) The defendant is the appellant against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and haryana in RSA No. 3287 of 1996. When the case was called, there was none on behalf of the appellant. We, therefore, have perused the relevant judgment and orders with the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
(2.) The plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration that the order of termination is vitiated and null and void on several grounds including the ground that no due opportunity having been given to the plaintiff to defend his case in course of the enquiry, there has been a gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The defendant filed the written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint. On the basis of the pleadings the learned trial Judge framed 7 issues and on Issues 4, 5 and 6, which are the issues on merits, it came to hold against the plaintiff and recorded a finding that the impugned order dated March 15, 1989 is legal and valid and in accordance with the rules and regulations governing the service conditions of the plaintiff and the plaintiff is not entitled to the declaration and injunction as prayed for. The Trial Judge having dismissed the suit, the plaintiff carried the matter in appeal. The Additional District judge, Patiala, who was the lower Appellate court, reappreciated the entire materials on record as well as the legal position and came to the conclusion that no reasonable opportunity can be held to have been afforded to the plaintiff when even the documents relied upon by the enquiry officer had not been supplied and such denial of reasonable opportunity vitiates the order of punishment inflicted upon the plaintiff. The lower Appellate Court, therefore, set aside the judgment and decree of the learned Trial judge and allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. Against this judgment of the lower appellate Court the employer Corporation approached the High Court in second appeal. The High Court in the second appeal reaffirmed the conclusion of the lower Appellate Court and came to hold that the enquiry is vitiated in not affording a reasonable opportunity to the plaintiff delinquent in the enquiry proceeding. It is against this judgment of the High Court, the present appeal has been preferred.
(3.) We have examined the judgment of the lower Appellate Court as well as the impugned judgment of the High Court. In view of the conclusion of the lower Appellate Court, that even the documents relied upon by the department in establishing the charge have not been given to the delinquent, the conclusion is irresistible that the delinquent had been denied a reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the proceeding, and, therefore, the lower Appellate Court as well as the High Court are fully justified in setting aside the order of termination passed by the competent authority. We, therefore, do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court passed in the second appeal. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.;