Punjab-Haryana High Court
The Punjab State Co-Operative Supply ... vs Baljinder Singh, Field Officer Markfed ... on 11 February, 1992
Equivalent citations: (1992)102PLR98
JUDGMENT A.S. Nehra, J.
1. The revision petition is directed against the order dated 27.7.1991 passed by the additional District Judge , Faridkot, by which the appeal filed by the defendant petitioner was dismissed and the order dated 10.5.1991 passed by the trail court restraining the defendant petitioner from recovering 165 Quintals and 60 Kilograms of wheat from the plaintiff respondent was upheld,.
2. The plaintiff respondent filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the order dated 22-8.1990 by A.M.D.(G), MARKEFED, Chandigarh, by which his conduct has been censured and it has been ordered that recovery of loss of 165 Quintals and 60 Kilograms of wheat be effected from him, is illegal, null and void etc. and also prayed for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from recovering the said wheat from him.
3. The plaintiff respondent filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, read with Section 151 , Code for Civil Procedure for issuance of a temporary injunction restraining the defendant petitioner from recovering wheat,
4. This application was opposed by the defendant petitioner . It was pleaded on behalf of the petitioner that, in fact, full opportunity was given to the plaintiff respondent to defend his case before the Enquiry officer and then proper procedure was adopted by the Additional Managing Director (C) while deciding the case of the plaintiff respondent that the impugned order is legal and valid: and that the punishing authority has given detailed reasons for disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the impugned order is a speaking one.
5. It was held by the trial Court that, no doubt, the punishing authority has given reasons in the impugned order for disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry officer but it has still to be gone into as to whether the said reasons have substance in them or not; and that the plaintiff respondent who is an employee drawing fixed salary would suffer irreparable loss and injury if he is not granted temporary injunction . In view of the above mentioned observations, the plaintiff respondent was granted temporary injunction restraining the petitioner from recovering wheat.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the temporary injunction can be ,issued unless the following three essential ingredients are made out :- essential
(i) prima facie case,
(ii) balance of convenience, and
(iii) irreparable injury which could not be compensated in terms of money.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that if a party fails to make out any of the aforesaid ingredients, he would not be entitled to the injunction and the Court will be justified in declining to issue the injunction; that the refusal of injunction would not cause any irreparable injury to the plaintiff-respondent as he could be compensated in terms of money in the event of his success in the suit; that the plaintiff-respondent has not been able to make out a prima facie case and the balance of convenience is also not in his favour; that the plaintiff-respondent has been held guilty for the loss of wheat and in case the petitioner is restrained from recovering wheat from the plaintiff-respondent, then the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss; that the Enquiry Officer exonerated the plaintiff-respondent but the punishing authority has given very sound reasons in the impugned order while disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer; and that the Civil Court cannot go into the reasons given by the punishing authority while deciding the civil suit. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the lower Courts have not considered the question whether the plaintiff-respondent could be compensated by way of damages in terms of money. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon Hazrat Surat Shah, Urdu Education Society v. Abdul Saheb, 1988 (5) S. L. R, 768. and Parveen Chander Chadha v. Raj Kumar Thapar., A. I. R. 1980 P. & h. 277.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the impugned order dated 22-8-1990 passed by the A. M. D (G), MARKFED, Chandigarh, is illegal and without jurisdiction, because the provisions of Rule 2.14 of the Punjab State Supply and Marketing Co-operatives Services (Common Cadre) Rules, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), have not been followed. Rule 2.14 of the Rules reads as under :-
"No penalty shall be imposed on any employee unless the charge or charges on which it is proposed to take disciplinary action against him, have been communicated to him in writing and he has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken against him. The authority competent to impose the penalty may, if circumstances permit, hold an enquiry into the charge or charges or cause such an enquiry to be held by an officer superior to the person against whom the action is proposed to be taken for the purpose of ascertaining the truth or otherwise of the charge or charges. If it is decided to hold an enquiry, employee concerned shall be permitted to cite witness on his behalf and examine the relevant documents but shall not be permitted to engage a lawyer at the enquiry."
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner and hold that no temporary injunction should be issued unless the three ingredients, namely, (i) prima facie case, (ii) balance of convenience, and' (iii) irreparable injury which could not be compensated in terms of money; are made out. The plaintiff-respondent has failed to make out any of the aforesaid three ingredients and, therefore, he is not entitled to the injunction and the Courts below were not justified in granting the injunction to the plaintiff-respondent.
9. Whether the provisions of Rule 2.14 of the Rules have been complied with or not by the punishing authority, will be decided after trial by the Court. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent.
10. In view of the above mentioned discussion, this revision petition is allowed with costs and the orders passed by the trial court and the lower appellate Court on 10-5-1991 and 27-7-1993 respectively are set aside.