- (1.) Present regular second appeal has been filed by the appellants-defendants against the judgment and decree dated 22.03.1997 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, whereby judgment and decree dated 12.11.1994 passed by the learned Trial Court has been set aside. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for declaration stating that he was working as Assistant Store Keeper in the office of the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala in Patiala-I Depot. He received suspension order dated 23.02.1987, followed by charge sheet and statement of allegations dated 09.12.1987. He was directed to submit his reply.
(2.) Before submitting his reply, departmental inquiry was initiated against him. Sh. Nand Lal, Legal Advisor was appointed as Enquiry Officer, who submitted his enquiry report on 23.09.1988. On the basis of that report, show cause notice dated 16.02.1989 was issued to the plaintiff-respondent wherein a proposal of stoppage of four increments, with cumulative effect was made. The plaintiff-respondent submitted his detailed reply to the show cause notice. But ignoring all the relevant facts, defendant No. 2 passed the impugned order. The defendants appeared and filed written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint. The learned Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 12.11.1994, dismissed the suit and in appeal, the said judgment has been reversed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala vide judgment and decree dated 22.03.1997. Hence, this regular second appeal.
(3.) At the time of admission, no substantial question of law was framed. However, subsequently, following substantial questions of law have been placed on record: 1.Whether the findings given by the Ld. Lower Appellate Court are perverse to the evidence on record 2. Whether the punishing authority is bound to give details reasons while punishing the delinquent 3. Whether the show cause notice issued with proposed punishment can be said to be with predetermined mind 4. Whether the civil court can interfere with the quantum of punishment if the enquiry proceedings are as per the principles of natural justice 5. Whether by setting aside of punishment order the delinquent employee would be entitled to all the service benefits if the enquiry proceedings were found to be as per law ;