G.S. Singhvi, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 2.9.1993 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant for quashing of the orders dated 25.3.1987 and 3.3.1988 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Sangrur and order dated 19.7.1988 passed by the High Court and also for issue of a mandamus to the respondents to reinstate him in service with consequential benefits.
(2.) A perusal of the record shows that the appellant joined service as Copyist in Session Division, Sangrur in pursuance of the order of appointment dated 22.5.1974 issued by the District and Sessions Judge, Sangrur. In February, 1986, a departmental enquiry was initiated against him on the charge of absence from duty. He was also placed and or suspension by an order dated 27.2.1986 issued by the Senior Sub Judge, Sangrur. The Enquiry Officer returned the finding of guilty against the appellant and on that basis, he was dismissed from service vide order dated 15.12.1986 passed by Senior Sub Judge, Sangrur. That order was set aside by the District and Sessions Judge, Sangrur -cum -appellate authority on the ground that the Senior Sub Judge was not competent to pass order of dismissal qua the appellant, who was holding the post of Copyist. Simultaneously, the appellate authority directed holding of fresh enquiry in respect of charge -sheets dated 30.1.1986 and 27.2.1986. Shew also directed that the suspension order shall be deemed to have continued from the date of its inception and shall remain in force until further orders. The Enquiry Officer again held the appellant guilty of the charges of absence from duty. The District and Sessions Judge, Sangrur accepted the second enquiry report and passed order dated 3.3.1988 removing the appellant from service. The departmental appeal filed by him was dismissed by the High Court and the writ petition filed by him for quashing of the orders passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Sangrur and the High Court was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Shri S.K. Sharma Budhladewala, counsel for the appellant argued that the order of the learned Single Judge and should be declared as vitiated by an error of law and set aside because most of the legal issues raised in the petition for challenging the legality of the orders dated 25.3.1987 and 3.3.1988 and 19.7.1988 have been left undecided. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner -appellant had challenged the order of removal on the ground of violation of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 (for short, the Rules) and the principles of natural justice, but without considering this aspect of the matter, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. He further argued that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and the punishing authority on the charges levelled against the appellant i.e., absence from duty were ex facie perverse and the punishment awarded by the latter was wholly disproportionate to misconduct allegedly committed by him, but without adverting to these grounds of challenge, the leaned Single Judge upheld the order of removal.
(3.) THE learned Deputy Advocate General referred to the contents of the order under challenge to show that the only point urged by the counsel for the petitioner (appellant herein) before the learned Single Judge related to the legality of this continued suspension and submitted that he should not be allowed to raise new points for the first time in the appeal. He further submitted that even if the appellant had raised the plea of violation of the principles of natural justice and the Rules or proportionality of punishment, the same will be deemed to have given up because the counsel appearing on his behalf did not argued the same before the learned Single Judge.;