http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: KASHMIR SINGH

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       06/09/1996

BENCH: B.P.JEEVAN REDDY, K.S. PARIPOORNAN

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      Heard counsel for the parties.      The respondent  was a  driver in  the  service  of  the Punjab Roadways,  Jallandhar. There  was an  accident to the bus he  was driving  on 2.7.86.  Number of  passengers  were injured and the bus damaged. A F.I.R. WAS issued against the respondent under  Section 304-A  of the  I.P.C. and  certain other provisions.  He was  also suspended pending inquiry. A memo of  charges was  issued to  him  proposing  to  hold  a disciplinary inquiry  on the  charges of causing loss to the Corporation by  driving the  bus rashly  and negligently. An Inquiry Officer,  Shri R.S. Sharma, was appointed. White the proceedings were  pending before  the Inquiry  Officer,  the Criminal Court  acquitted the  respondent under its judgment and order  dated 19.10.1988.  After perusing the judgment of the Criminal Court, a fresh disciplinary inquiry was ordered against the respondent for which purpose a different Inquiry Officer  was   appointed.  The   disciplinary  inquiry   was accordingly held  and on  the basis  of the  report  of  the Inquiry Officer  the respondent  was  found  guilty  of  the charges and dismissed from service.      The respondent  instituted a  suit in the Court of Sub- Judge, Jallandhar  for  a  declaration  that  the  order  of dismissal  was   void  and  illegal  and  for  consequential benefits. The  learned Subordinate  Judge dismissed the suit but  in   appeal  the  learned  District  Judge  upheld  the respondent’s claim.  The order  of  dismissal  was  declared illegal and  the respondent  was held  entitled to  all  the benefits flowing  from such  declaration. The  second appeal preferred by  the Corporation  and the  State of  Punjab was dismissed in limine by the High Court.      The main  ground upon  which the learned District Judge has decreed  the respondent’s  suit is  that inasmuch as the first Inquiry  Officer (Shri  R.S.Sharma) had  submitted his report  which   report  was   also  acted  upon,  no  second disciplinary inquiry  could have  been ordered, particularly after acquittal  by the  Criminal Court.  We called upon the learned counsel  for the respondent before us to show us the evidence or the material on the basis of which the Appellate

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

Court has  held that the first Inquiry Officer had submitted his report  after the  conclusion of the inquiry and that it was also  acted upon.  We also  asked the learned counsel to clarify that  do the  words  "the  inquiry  report  of  Shri R.S.Sharma has  been acted  upon  under  Rule  9.1"  in  the Judgment of  the learned  District Judge,  mean. The learned counsel for  the respondent  is  unable  to  point  out  any evidence or  explain the  said observation.  Indeed  in  the written submissions  filed  by  the  learned  counsel,  Shri U.S.Prasad, it  is stated  "in all fairness I must point out to your Lordships that Inquiry Report and order imposing the punishment is  not available".  The basis of the judgment of the first Appellate Court thus becomes untenable.      We are,  however, not inclined to dispose of the matter finally at  this stage.  We have  not been shown the copy of the judgment  and order of the Criminal Court acquitting the respondent. We  have also  not been  shown  the  proceedings ordering the fresh inquiry or the reasons in which the fresh disciplinary inquiry was ordered, after the acquittal of the Criminal  Court.   These   matters   may   require   further examination. Accordingly  we allow  the appeal and set aside the judgment  of the High Court to request the High Court to admit the  second appeal  preferred by  the appellants’  and dispose it of on merits in accordance with law.