- (1.)It is defendant's second appeal, against the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the learned courts below, whereby suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff, was decreed.
(2.)Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the learned first appellate court in para 2 and 3 of the impugned judgment, are that plaintiff-respondent Gurmit Singh instituted a suit for declaration to the effect that the order No. 8228-32/ST (GM) dated 16.7.1987, passed by the General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Depot No.2 Jalandhar whereby the plaintiff was removed from services forfeituring his pay and allowances, was illegal, void, based upon no evidence and not binding upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff continued to be in the service of the defendant with entitlement to all pay and allowances from the period of suspension till re-instatement, Plaintiff averred that since he was employed as a conductor No. 164 in Punjab Roadways Depot No.2, which was a State Government Undertaking, therefore, he was a civil servant and entitled to the Constitutional protection enshrined under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. It was averred that on the basis of false complaint, he was charge-sheeted for having defrauded the Department to the tune of Rs. 135.80 P, vide memo No. 9101/TA dated 12.12.1986 by the General Manager Punjab Roadways, Jalandhar Depot No.2. The charge sheet was quite vague, defective and not drawn according to the Service Rules. A copy of the complaint on which the charge sheet was based, was not supplied to the plaintiff in spite of his repeated demands. He could not submit proper reply to the charge sheet. The General Manager, without considering the reply of the plaintiff, ordered the enquiry against the plaintiff in a ritual manner. The plaintiff being not conversant with the Rules, was incapable in propounding his defence and he was not given assistance of a co-worker in the enquiry proceedings. The request of the plaintiff for the assistance of a co-worker, was declined by the Enquiry Officer and as such, he was denied of reasonable opportunity of defence. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry with a biased mind and plaintiff could not plead his case properly.
(3.)The Enquiry Officer submitted his report. Ultimately, the General Manager passed the impugned order terminating the services of the plaintiff. It was further averred that the plaintiff was not entitled to any amount except the subsistence allowance. The order of the removal of the plaintiff from services as well as forfeiture of pay during the suspension period, was illegal biased, cryptic, based on no evidence, against the Principles of Natural Justice and provisions of Punjab Civl Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970. A notice under Section 80 CPC was served upon the defendant, but the same was not accepted. Hence the suit was filed.