Cwp No. 17022 of 2010 (Oandm) Vs. State of Punjab and Others --respondents - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1091805
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnSep-23-2013
AppellantCwp No. 17022 of 2010 (Oandm)
RespondentState of Punjab and Others --respondents
Excerpt:
in the high court of punjab & haryana at chandigarh cwp no.17022 of 2010 (o&m) date of decision: 23.9.2013. swaran singh bhullar --petitioner versus state of punjab and others --respondents coram:- hon'ble mr.justice tejinder singh dhindsa. present:- mr.g.p.s.bal, advocate for the petitioner. ms.sudeepti sharma, d.a.g., punjab. mr.r.d.bawa, advocate for respondent no.4. *** tejinder singh dhindsa.j the petitioner stands retired from the post of inspector/s.s.grade-i, punjab roadways, amritsar. challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 18.12.2009 (annexure p-5).whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against an order dated 22.6.1987 imposing the penalty of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect has been rejected on the ground of delay. learned counsel for the petitioner would raise a two fold submission. it has been argued that the order passed by the appellate authority is vitiated as the matter has not been adjudicated upon on merits and rather the appeal has been dismissed on the technical ground of delay. it is the contention of learned counsel that the statutory appeal had in fact been preferred within the period of limitation in the year 1987 itself and as such, there was no occasion for the appellate authority to have rejected the same on the ground of delay. the second submission raised by learned lucky 2013.10.05 09:26 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh cwp no.17022 of 2010 (o&m) -2- counsel is that a similarly situated employee namely sawinder singh, conductor no.96 against whom also inquiry had been conducted and penalty had been imposed, had challenged the same along with other workmen before the industrial tribunal, punjab. the tribunal vide award dated 30.9.1993 had quashed the punishment orders and directed the payment of monetary benefits w.e.f.1.11.1986. municipal corporation, amritsar had challenged the award by filing cwp no.9656 of 1995 and such writ petition was partly allowed in terms of upholding the impugned award as regards invalidity of the orders of punishment and modifying the award with regard to arrears payable. counsel would contend that on the ground of parity, the order of penalty imposed upon the petitioner cannot sustain. having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the pleadings on record, i am of the considered view that the present writ petition merits dismissal. placed on record at annexure p-2 is the appeal which carries the date 13.2.2009. if, any appeal had been preferred in the year 1987 against an order of penalty, such fact would necessarily have found a mention in such subsequent appeal filed in the year 2009. on the other hand, a minute perusal of annexure p-2 would make it apparent that the so called appeal preferred in the year 1987 has not even been referred to. the appellate authority has taken notice of the fact that an appeal preferred in the year 2009 against an order of penalty passed in the year 1987 would be time barred. no exception can be taken to such view. even otherwise, no benefit can enure to the petitioner in the light of judgement dated 13.7.1995 passed by this court in cwp no.9656 cwp no.17022 of 2010 (o&m) -3- of 1995. in that case the effected employees including sawinder singh had approached the industrial tribunal, punjab immediately upon cause of action having arisen. the award was passed in the year 1993 and the judgement at annexure p-1 was passed by this court upholding such award in part. the issue in this case is that of delay. without even going into the merits of the case as regards the charges and propriety of the departmental proceedings etc., no interference is called for in the impugned order dated 18.12.2009 (annexure p-5).whereby appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected holding the same to be time barred. writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (tejinder singh dhindsa) judge september 23, 2013. lucky
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.17022 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 23.9.2013.

Swaran Singh Bhullar --Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.

Present:- Mr.G.P.S.Bal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms.Sudeepti Sharma, D.A.G., Punjab.

Mr.R.D.Bawa, Advocate for respondent no.4.

*** TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.J The petitioner stands retired from the post of Inspector/S.S.Grade-I, Punjab Roadways, Amritsar.

Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 18.12.2009 (Annexure P-5).whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against an order dated 22.6.1987 imposing the penalty of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect has been rejected on the ground of delay.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would raise a two fold submission.

It has been argued that the order passed by the Appellate Authority is vitiated as the matter has not been adjudicated upon on merits and rather the appeal has been dismissed on the technical ground of delay.

It is the contention of learned counsel that the statutory appeal had in fact been preferred within the period of limitation in the year 1987 itself and as such, there was no occasion for the Appellate Authority to have rejected the same on the ground of delay.

The second submission raised by learned Lucky 2013.10.05 09:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CWP No.17022 of 2010 (O&M) -2- counsel is that a similarly situated employee namely Sawinder Singh, Conductor No.96 against whom also inquiry had been conducted and penalty had been imposed, had challenged the same along with other workmen before the Industrial Tribunal, Punjab.

The Tribunal vide award dated 30.9.1993 had quashed the punishment orders and directed the payment of monetary benefits w.e.f.1.11.1986.

Municipal Corporation, Amritsar had challenged the award by filing CWP No.9656 of 1995 and such writ petition was partly allowed in terms of upholding the impugned award as regards invalidity of the orders of punishment and modifying the award with regard to arrears payable.

Counsel would contend that on the ground of parity, the order of penalty imposed upon the petitioner cannot sustain.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the pleadings on record, I am of the considered view that the present writ petition merits dismissal.

Placed on record at Annexure P-2 is the appeal which carries the date 13.2.2009.

If, any appeal had been preferred in the year 1987 against an order of penalty, such fact would necessarily have found a mention in such subsequent appeal filed in the year 2009.

On the other hand, a minute perusal of Annexure P-2 would make it apparent that the so called appeal preferred in the year 1987 has not even been referred to.

The Appellate Authority has taken notice of the fact that an appeal preferred in the year 2009 against an order of penalty passed in the year 1987 would be time barred.

No exception can be taken to such view.

Even otherwise, no benefit can enure to the petitioner in the light of judgement dated 13.7.1995 passed by this Court in CWP No.9656 CWP No.17022 of 2010 (O&M) -3- of 1995.

In that case the effected employees including Sawinder Singh had approached the Industrial Tribunal, Punjab immediately upon cause of action having arisen.

The award was passed in the year 1993 and the judgement at Annexure P-1 was passed by this Court upholding such award in part.

The issue in this case is that of delay.

Without even going into the merits of the case as regards the charges and propriety of the departmental proceedings etc., no interference is called for in the impugned order dated 18.12.2009 (Annexure P-5).whereby appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected holding the same to be time barred.

Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE September 23, 2013.

lucky