Mohinder Pal, J. - (1.) This is regular second appeal directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Amritsar vide which the appeal filed by the appellant-Dharam Singh (respondent herein) has been allowed and his suit for declaration that the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar vide which he was removed from service with consequential relief has been decreed.
(2.) As per facts of this case, plaintiff-Dharam Singh (respondent herein) was posted as Chowkidar at Tehsil Office Baba Bakala. He was subjected to departmental inquiry and his services were terminated and he was dismissed vide order dated 13.9.1982. Appeal preferred before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar was also dismissed on 17.10.1983. The plaintiff-appellant challenged the impugned order by way of declaratory suit with the averments that the order was illegal, void, ineffective, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice as well as against the Punjab Civil Services Rules. It was alleged that the inquiry was not conducted according to the rules. The documents relied upon by the Department were not supplied to him hence he was not in a position to put his defence. The Inquiry Officer acted as prosecutor and there was no evidence against the plaintiff, no eye witness of the alleged occurrence was examined and he was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. It was also pleaded that the impugned order is discriminatory as proceedings against Gurmukh Singh co-accused were dropped and he was reinstated in service with all service benefits. After notice (appellants herein) contested the suit and controverted the allegations. It was pleaded that the inquiry was conducted in accordance with the rules and the plaintiff was supplied with all necessary documents and he had been found guilty after affording him full opportunity to defend his case. After framing of issues and recording of evidence suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. However, in appeal the finding of the trial Court has been reversed on the ground that the plaintiff has been discriminated against and further he has not been given proper opportunity to defend his case in departmental proceedings. Aggrieved from this order of the appellate Court, the present regular second appeal has been filed.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.;