High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
State of Haryana & Ors v. NIHAL SINGH - RSA-3211-2005  RD-P&H 1174 (27 February 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
R.S.A. NO. 3211 of 2005
DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 6 ,2006
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS V. NIHAL SINGH PRESENT: SHRI D.S.NALWA, ,DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL, HARYANA,FOR THE APPELLANTS.
SHRI SHYAM KUMAR SHRMA, ADVOCATE, FOR THE RESPONDENT.
Defendant-State of Haryana and others having lost before the learned first appellate Court, have approached this court through the present regular second appeal.
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration challenging the order of punishment dated August 23,1999 passed by defendant No.3 and the appellate order dated December 22,1999 as well as revisional order dated December 22,2000, passed by the Inspector General of Police.
Vide order of punishment dated August 23,1999, a punishment of stoppage of five increments with permanent effect was imposed upon the plaintiff. His appeal was rejected by the appellate authority. However, on a revision petition filed by the plaintiff, the punishment was reduced to stoppage of three increments with permanent effect. The plaintiff claimed that the aforesaid orders were illegal, bad and are liable to be set aside.
The trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff.
The matter was taken up in appeal by the plaintiff. The learned first appellate Court reappraised the evidence and came to the conclusion that the enquiry officer had misconducted himself during the enquiry proceedings and was biased. It was also noticed that two of the witnesses namely, Krishan Kumar, and Balwant Singh, who had appeared during the enquiry proceedings had specifically exonerated the plaintiff from the charges against him. The enquiry officer chose to recall the aforesaid R.S.A. No.3211 of 2005
witnesses and cross-examined them himself. Consequently, it was held that the enquiry officer was biased against the plaintiff. It was further held by the learned first appellate Court that an order of punishment, by way of recovery, had already been passed against the plaintiff with regard to loss caused by him and,therefore, the fresh punishment order now under challenge amounted to double jeopardy against the plaintiff. The learned first appellate Court has held that this was not permissible. Consequently, the appeal of the plaintiff was allowed and his suit was decreed.
Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by the learned first appellate Court suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to record.
No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal.
March 6,2006 (Viney Mittal )
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.