AMARJIT SINGH Vs. PUNJAB WAREHOUSING CORPORATION
LAWS(P&H)-1990-11-118
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on November 07,1990

AMARJIT SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
PUNJAB WAREHOUSING CORPORATION Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 19.4.1989 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, whereby he upheld the judgment passed by the Subordinate Judge Ist Class, Jalandhar, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff whereby he has challenged the order of termination of his services. The facts of this case are not in dispute. The appellant joined service of the Corporation as Accounts Clerk on 2.5.1974. He successfully completed the period of probation. Thereafter, the appellant was promoted to the post of Additional Manager, at Batala on 19.5.1977 by the Managing Director of the Corporation. However, the appellant was removed from service by an order of the Managing Director dated 14.7.1980. The appellant preferred appeal against the said order of dismissal from service and the said appeal was dismissed.
(2.) The appellant filed a civil suit in the Court of Sub Judge Ist Class, Jalandhar, for a declaration that the order dated 14.7.1980 is illegal, ultra vires and null and void. The Sub Judge Ist Class vide his judgment and decree dated 31.1.1985, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant.
(3.) Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate Judge, Jalandhar, the appellant preferred an appeal to the Court of District Judge, Jalandhar. The said appeal came up for hearing before the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar. The Additional District Judge, Jalandhar dismissed the appeal. Now the appellant has come up in Regular Second Appeal against the said judgment and decree dated 19.4.1989 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Jalandhar. Admittedly, the conditions of service of the appellant are governed by the statutory regulations framed by the Corporation. Regulation 16 of the statutory regulations reads as under :- "16. Imposition of penalties : 1. Any employee who commits a breach of any of these regulations or is guilty of negligence, inefficiency or indolence in performance of his duties or knowingly does anything detrimental to the interest of the Corporation or in conflict with its institutions or committing a breach of discipline or is guilty of any other act of misconduct, misdemeanour or is convicted of a criminal offence shall be liable to the following penalties : a. Censure. b. Stoppage of increments. c. Reduction to a lower post in his permanent class or to a lower stage in his incremental scale. d. Recovery from pay and allowances of the whole or part of the pecuniary loss caused to the Corporation by the employee. e. Removal. f. Dismissal. 2. The powers to impose a penalty under sub-regulation (1) shall be exercised : (i) by the executive committee in the case of Class I employees other than the Managing Director, in respect of all penalties except the penalty specified in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-regulation (1); (ii) by the Managing Director, in the case of class II, Class III, and Class IV employees, in respect of all penalties and in the case Class I employee in respect of penalties specified in clauses (a) and (b) of the Sub-regulation (1); and (iii) by the Board of Directors in consultation and with previous approval of the Government and the Central Warehousing Corporation in the case of the Managing Director in respect of all penalties : Provided that no punishment shall be imposed on any employee without charge-sheeting him and without giving him an opportunity for tendering an explanation in writing and cross-examining the witnesses against him, if any, and of producing defence : Provided further that any punishment to an employee on deputation shall be imposed only in accordance with the procedure and rules laid down in this behalf in his parent service.";


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.