Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHER versus CHAMKAUR SINGH

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Punjab State Electricity Board and other v. Chamkaur Singh - RSA-3882-2001 [2006] RD-P&H 3735 (5 July 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

R.S.A. No. 3882 of 2001 (O&M)

Date of Decision: January 23, 2006

Punjab State Electricity Board and others .....Appellants

Vs.

Chamkaur Singh

.....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL.
Present:- Mr. Kapil Kakkar, Advocate

for the appellants.

Mr. B.N. Sehgal, Advocate

for the respondent.

-.-

VINEY MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

The Defendant- Board and others having concurrently lost before both the Courts below has approached this Court through the present Regular Second Appeal.

The facts which emerge from the record show that originally it was contemplated by the Board to charge sheet the plaintiff for misconduct and for imposition of major penalty. On receipt of his reply, a minor penalty was imposed R.S.A. No. 3882 of 2001 (O&M) [2]

upon him. Increments without cumulative effect were stopped. The plaintiff challenged the aforesaid order of punishment. The two Courts below held that once the Department had initiated proceedings for imposition of major punishment then subsequently, even a minor penalty could not be imposed upon him without following due procedure for imposition of major penalty. Consequently, suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed and the appeal filed by the defendant- Board failed before the learned first Appellate Court.

The controversy in question is squarely covered by a Full Bench judgment of this Court in 2002 (3) RSJ 296, Dr. K.G. Tiwari Vs. State of Haryana and others.

In view of the law laid down by the Full Bench, the judgments rendered by the Courts below cannot be held to be erroneous in any manner.

Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by both the Courts below 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.

Dismissed.

January 23, 2006 (VINEY MITTAL)

sanjay JUDGE


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.