(O&M)Punjab State v. Jaswinder Singh

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J (ORAL)

1.    The  State  of  Punjab  has  preferred  the  present  appeal  against  the judgment and decree dated 01.02.2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar whereby the appeal filed by the respondent against dismissal of civil  suit  dated  17.01.1997  passed  by  learned  Civil  Judge  (Junior  Division), Jalandhar, whereby suit for declaration to the effect that order dated 16.01.1996 passed  by  the  Additional  Inspector  General  of  Police,  PAP,  Jalandhar  Cantt. whereby,  revision  petition  filed  by  the  respondent  was  rejected  and  further thchallenged the order dated 06.02.1995 passed by the Commandant, 9  Battalian, PAP,  Amritsar,  whereby,  he  was  dismissed  from  service  and  the  period  from

13.10.1994 to 15.12.1994 was treated as non-duty period, was allowed.

2.    Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that  the  order  dated  16.1.1996  passed  by  the  Additional  Inspector  General  of

Police, PAP Jal which order dat PAP, Jalandhar, No.9505/CRC, Amritsar dismis

15.12.1994 as unlawful, uncon provisions of law is not binding on

2.6.1995 and is to that post on Constable in th Battalion PAP, Amritsar in the been working v officers, who w reports from tim with a PAP (Re for the same du was fixed for 15 whereupon he a place of his post and remained u declared fit to Battalion Headq landhar Cantt. whereby his revi ted Nil passed by the Deputy In , Cantt. rejecting his appeal and o dated 6.9.1995 passed by the ssing him from service and treat non-duty and without pay per nstitutional, arbitrary, discrimi w, service rules and rules of natu n him and he continued to serve entitled to all rights privileges n the ground that he joined t he PAP Jalandhar Cantt. on 7. Bahadurgarh, Patiala, he was year 1989. From the very first very hard, honestly and to the were satisfied with his work and me to time. For law and order d eserve). In the Month of October uty. His elder sister expired and

5.10.1994 to be performed with applied for leave but the same w ting to attend the said marriage. under treatment in Gupta Nursin resume duty, the plaintiff rep quarter at Amritsar. He was t

ision-petition was rejected and nspector General of Police, Adm order dated 6.2.1995 bearing me Commandant, 9th Battalion PA ting the period from 13.10.1994 riod have merged is illegal, vo inatory and malafide, against ural justice and, therefore, the sa the department as Constable bef and other service benefits attach the Punjab Police Department

6.1988 and was attached with transferred to 9th Battalion PA t day of his joining service, he h entire satisfaction of his super d conduct and also gave him go duty, the plaintiff was sent to De r, 1994, he was still posted at De d the marriage of his younger si the husband of his deceased sis was declined. He, therefore, left He alleged that thereafter he fel ng Home, Kurali. On having b ported back on 15.12.1994 in treated as absent from duty fr

d in mn. emo AP, 4 to oid, ame fore hed t as AP, had rior ood elhi elhi ster ster, ll ill een

13.10.1994 to 1 Reserve Inspec departmental inq service rules and and held him g opportunity of b order dated 2.6. to 15.12.1994 w

3.

Fee was dismissed b Cantt. vide orde P.A.P., Amritsa filed a revision General of Poli plaintiff claimed by the Deputy In dated 2.6.1995 granted leave d marriage of his warranting depa the documents inquiry was not Punjab Police R Enquiry Officer action would be

5.12.1994 and ordered to be trie ctor of Police, 9th Battalion, quiry against the plaintiff, in con d rules of natural justice. He ret guilty. The plaintiff further alleg being heard and the Command 1995 dismissing him from servi was ordered to be treated as non-d eling aggrieved by the said order by the Deputy Inspector Genera er dated nil conveyed to him b ar vide his Memo No.9505/CR against the said order which w ice, PAP, Jalandhar Cantt. vid d the order dated 16.1.1996 in w nspector General of Police, Adm have merged as illegal and voi despite repeated requests and t sister and thereafter his falling il artmental action against him. H relied upon by the department t conducted in accordance with t Rules, and he was not allowed to r obtained his signatures on bl e taken against him. He was not

ed departmentally. Shri Ajit Sin , PAP, Amritsar, conducted ntravention of the provisions of l turned a finding against the plain ged that he was not even given dant, 9th Battalion, PAP passed ice and the period from 13.10.19 duty period and without pay. r the plaintiff filed an appeal wh al of Police, Admn. PAP, Jaland by the Commandant, 9th Battali RC, dated 6.09.1995. The plain was rejected by the Addl. Direc de his order dated 16.1.1996. T which order dated 26.2.1996 pas mn. PAP, Jalandhar Cantt. and or id on the grounds that he was there being compelling reasons ll did not constitute any miscond He was not supplied with copies during the course of inquiry. T the provisions of Rule 16.24 of o cross-examine the witnesses. T lank papers on the pretext that t allowed to lead defence eviden

ngh, aw, ntiff n an d an hich dhar ion, ntiff ctor The ssed rder not s of duct s of The The

The Reserve Ins Gazetted Office notice on him n from duty doe punishment of d order has been p Police Rules. N before passing t in consonance much, too, seve without pay per rules. The prev consideration w opportunity of r the plaintiff wer the plaintiff ha Officials simila Admn. PAP and did not assign a notice under Sec

4.

Up apart from takin action, jurisdict plaintiff was aff and valid and pr spector was not competent to co er. He was not called by the Com nor did he explain the charges es not constitute gravest act dismissal could not have been i passed in contravention of the pr No opportunity of personal hea the impugned order and punishm with the allegations levelled a ere. The punishment of treating t riod cannot be inflicted on any vious record of service of th while passing the impugned o rebutting the same. The favoura re not considered, while passing as been illegally discriminated arly circumstanced and the Dep d the Additional Director Genera any reasons for rejecting his app ction 80 C.P.C. on the defendant on notice, defendants appeared a ng preliminary objections of m tion to try the suit by the Civil forded with all legal opportunitie rayer for dismissal of the suit wa

onduct the inquiry as he was no mmandant for service of show ca proved against him. The abse of misconduct and as such inflicted upon him. The impugn rovisions of Rule 16.2 of the Pun aring was afforded to the plain ment awarded to the plaintiff is gainst him and the punishmen the absence period as non-duty enrolled Police Officer as per he plaintiff has been taken i order without affording him able entries in the service record g the impugned order. The case d from the cases of other Po puty Inspector General of Pol al of Police, PAP, Jalandhar Can peal and revision. He also serve ts, but to no effect. and filed written statement, wher maintainability of suit, no cause l Court were pleaded. Further t es and the orders passed were le as made.

ot a ause nce ned njab ntiff not t is and into any d of e of lice ice, ntt., ed a rein e of that

5.

Fro

6.

Aft learned Civil J plaintiff/respond

7.

The Court was allow SUBMISSION

8.

Lea Appellate Court allowed the app

9.

Per the First Appella

10.

I h record of the ca Court is reprodu om the pleading of the parties, th "1. Whether the plaintiff is for? OPP

¶2Whether the suit is not ma

¶3Whether the notice u/s 80

¶4Whether the courts at Ja suit: OPD

¶5Relief." ter hearing both the parties an Judge (Senior Division), Jalan dent. e appeal filed by the respondent wed. Hence, appellant-State filed OF COUNSEL FOR THE PA arned State counsel for the a t without taking into considerati eal, filed by the respondent/plain r contra, learned counsel for the ate Court has rightly decided the have heard learned counsel for se. Relevant portion of the judg uced as under:- "12. Admittedly, the impug passed against Jaswinder

he following issues were framed: entitled to declaration as pray intainable? OPD C.P.C.is legal? OPP alandhar has jurisdiction to try nd perusing the whole record, ndhar dismissed the suit of t/plaintiff before the First Appell d the present appeal. ARTIES appellant contends that the F ion the facts on record has wron ntiff. e respondent/plaintiff contends t e appeal. the parties and perused the wh gment passed by the First Appell gned order Ext.P1 dated 2.6.95 w Singh, appellant/Plaintiff as

- yed late First ngly that hole late was

remained absent from duty days. Rule 16.2. of the Punja "16.2 (1) Dismissal sh acts of misconduct continued miscondu complete unfitness for award regard shall be offender and his claim

From the bare readin Punjab Police Rules it is awarded only for the graves Bench of our own High Cou Versus. Parkash Chand, C Reporter Page 174, as under "This Court has in a matter in order to find a gravest act of misc been cited before us b one which deals with leave. In Darshan S Single Judge has hel almost 13 months wou case amount to the gra Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.C.Ma has also observed in Jaswan

w.e.f. 13.10.94 to 15.12.94 for ab Police Rules read as under :- hall be awarded only for the grav or as the cumulative effect ct proving incorrigibility a r Police service. In making such e had to the length of service of m to pension." ng of the provisions of rule 16.2 clear that the dismissal shall st act of misconduct. The Divis urt has observed in State of Punj Constable 1002 (1) Services L r :- a number of cases gone into d as to what would really constit conduct. A number of cases h but we have chosen to pick up o h the question of absence with Singh's case (Supra) the learn ld that absence without leave uld not in the circumstances of t avest act of misconduct." lte, Judge or Our own High Co nt Singh Vs State of Punjab 19

r 64 vest of and h an f the 2 of be sion njab Law tute ave only hout ned for that

(1) Recent services Judgem duty would not be necessa unless it is coupled with som the delinquent was guilty incorrigibility and complete similar view was also take Chalapathi, in Ex Constable of Haryana and others 19

¶680As already mentioned against the delinquent that h

13.10.94 to 15.12.94 though and medical certificate whic the Punishing authority and the appellant/plaintiff. In th jutani Parkash Chand (Sup High Court has observed t learned Single Judge has he almost 13 months would no amount to the gravest act of ruling referred to above, me necessarily a gravest act o passed by the punishing auth hand, there is no charge lev except that he remained abs be considered to be a graves

ments 768 that mere absence fr arily a gravest act of miscond me other facts that would show t of continued misconduct show e unfitness for Police service en by Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.H e Balwant Singh Versus. The st 999(1) Recent Services Judgm d above there was only a cha he remained absent from duty fr h he had submitted the explanat ch was not considered as correct there was no other charge aga he case of State of Punjab vers pra) the Division Bench of our o that in Darshan Singh's case eld that absence without leave t in the circumstances of that c f misconduct. Thus in the light of ere absence from duty would not of misconduct and thus the or hority was set aside. In the case elled against the appellant/plain ent from duty and the same can t act of misconduct.

rom duct that wing . A H.B. tate ment arge rom tion t by inst sus. own for case f the t be rder e in ntiff

¶13I find force in the ar Govt. Pleader that th appellant/plaintiff was not order though a reference has Ext.P1. The learned counsel the ruling in Mahipat, Ex.Co others 1994 (4) Services L presence of the ruling of Div in Constable Jagmal Singh others, 1998 (1) Recent serv order is not the basis o appellant/plaintiff. It has a Jagmal Singh vs. State of checked and as a member of to be more responsible and h Lordships have observed tha said that the view taken arbitrary. In the case in han the appellant/plaintiff was h but the previous conduct of basis of the order and thus given to the plaintiff to expla

¶14In view of what has b that the punishing authority period of absence from d

rguments advanced by the learn he previous conduct of considered to pass the impugn s been made in the impugned or for the appellant/plaintiff has ci Constable Vs. State of Haryana a Law Reported 311 (supra). In vision Bench of our own High Co h Versus, State of Haryana a vice Judgments 151, the impugn of the previous conduct of also been observed in Consta Haryana (supra) that record w f disciplined force, he was expec he gave no indication thereof. Th at in such a situation it cannot by the respondent as unfair d also only the previous conduc highlighted in the impugned or f the appellant/plaintiff is not no opportunity was required to ain his previous conduct. been discussed above, I must h has passed the order showing duty as leave without pay wh

ned ned rder ited and ourt and ned able was cted heir t be or ct of rder o be hold

amounts to the regularisati duty and thus the charge of and the punishing authority the provisions of Rule 16.2 o mere absence from duty wou of misconduct and thus th punishing authority cannot Accordingly the appeal is decree passed by the Court (Junior Division) Jalandhar the suit of the plaintiff for order dated 16.1.96 passed b of Police, P.A.P., Jalandh petition of the plaintiff was nil passed by the Deputy In PAP Jalandhar Cantt. reject by the Commandant, vide

6.9.95 and order dated 2.6.9 Battalion, PAP Amritsar w service and the period from treated as non-duty and wi illegal and void, unlawful capricious, nul1, wanton, dis the provisions of law, service unjust and improper, inop

ion of the period of absence fr f absence from duty did not surv has not passed the order in view of the Punjab Police Rules, beca uld not be necessarily a gravest e impugned order passed by sustain and the same is set asi accepted and the judgement a t of Mrs. Preeti Sahni, Civil Jud r, dated 17.1.1997 is set aside a declaration to the effect that by the Additional Director Gene har Cantt. whereby the revisi rejected and in which order da nspector General of Police, Adm ting his appeal which was convey his Memo No.9505/CRC, da 95 passed by the Commandant, whereby he was dismissed fr m 13.10.94 to 15.12.94 has b ithout pay period, have merged l and unconstitutional, arbitra scriminatory and malafide, aga e rules and rules of natural just perative and ineffective and

rom vive w of ause act ide. and dge and eral ion-ated mn. eyed ated 9th rom een d is ary, inst ice, is,

CONCLUSION

11.

A p absent from d plaintiff/respond statement have satisfactory and leave and that i.e.:-

i) Censur O.B. No 1

ii) Warnin O.B. No.

iii) Censu vide O.B.

12.

So previous conduc while going thro was given every enquiry proceed therefore, not binding on him serve the department as C entitled to all rights, priv attached to that post, is de prepared accordingly and th Room. Lower Court record b N:- perusal of the record shows tha duty from 13.10.1994 to 15 dent of two months. Moreover, specifically stated that the act a on previous occasions also, he the plaintiff was given the follo re for remaining willful absent 161/91, ng for remaining willful absent 432/90 and ure for remaining willful absent . No. 62/95. taking into consideration all ct of the plaintiff/respondent was ough the whole enquiry file, it is y opportunity of being heard duri dings were conducted as per law

m and that the plaintiff continues Constable as before 2.6.95 and ileges and other service bene creed with costs. Decree sheet he file be consigned to the Rec be sent back." at the plaintiff/respondent remain

5.12.1994. There is absence the defendants/appellant in writ and conduct of the plaintiff was remained absent from duty with owing punishments previously a from duty for 23 days, LWP v from duty for 26 days, LWP v t from duty for 8 days, LWP/N these facts, it is found that s also not upto the mark. Moreov s found that the plaintiff/respond ing the enquiry proceedings and w and procedure prescribed there

s to d is efits t be ord ned of tten not hout also vide vide NDP ver, dent

RSA-1874-2001 (O&M)

So the order passed upon these enquiry proceedings is valid and binding upon the plaintiff/respondent.

13.    The findings of the learned First Appellate Court that mere absence from duty would not be necessarily a grave act of misconduct, is not acceptable to this Court.

14.    The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. versus Ashok Kumar Singh, 1996 (1) SCC 302 has held as under:- "8.  We are clearly of the opinion that the High Court has exceeded  its  jurisdiction  in  modifying  the  punishment  while concurring with the findings of the Tribunal on facts. The High Court failed to bear in mind that the first respondent was a police  constable  and  was  serving  in  a  disciplined  force demanding strict adherence to the rules and procedures more than any other department. Having noticed the fact that the first respondent  has  absented  himself  from  duty  without  leave  on several  occasions,  we  are  unable  to  appreciate  the  High Court's  observation  that  'his  absence  from  duty  would  not amount to such a grave charge'. Even otherwise on the facts of this  case,  there  was  no  justification  for  the  High  Court  to interfere with the punishment holding that 'the punishment does not  commensurate  with  the  gravity  of  the  charge'  especially when  the  High  Court  concurred  with  the  findings  of  the Tribunal on facts. No case for interference with the punishment is made out."

RSA-1874-2001 (O&M)

¶15As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that Police is a disciplined force, therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the order dated 02.06.1995 passed by ththe Commandant, 9 Battalian, PAP, Amritsar, whereby respondent was dismissed from service.

¶16In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 01.02.2001 passed by the First Appellate Court is set aside, whereas the judgment and decree dated 17.01.1997 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) is upheld.

¶17Decree-sheet be drawn accordingly.

¶18Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

1SU"EEPTI SHA %A2 $-tober 330 343,                 JU"#E %.&aundal

5hether spea6in 7 reasoned   : 9es7:o 5hether 8eportab%e     : 9es7:o

RSA-1874-2001 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh 719 RSA-1874-2001 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 22, 2024 THE PUNJAB STATE AND ORS .....APPELLANTS VERSUS SHRI JASWINDER SINGH ....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. S.S. Hira, DAG, Punjab. Mr. M.L. Saini, Advocate for the respondent. ****