Pb State and Others v. Baljit Singh

IN T

The State of Pun Baljit Singh

CORAM : HO

Present: Mr

for

Mr

Mr SUDEEPTI SH

01.06.2001 pas appeal filed by dated 16.12.199 aside.

2.

plaintiff-respond passed by Seni passed by Depu by Inspector G dismissed vide

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

RS Da njab and Others

VERSUS

ON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUD r. Maninder Singh, Sr. DAG, Pun the appellants. r. Mayank Vashisth, Advocate fo r. Prateek Mahajan, Advocate for -.-

HARMA, J (Oral). e present appeal is filed again sed by the learned Additional D the respondent-Baljit Singh was 99 passed by the Civil Judge (S e brief facts stated before the dent filed a suit for declaration ior Superintendent of Police, uty Inspector General in appeal General (Director General) of order dated 01.03.1996 by

JAB AND HARYANA ARH SA-3936-2001 (O&M) ate of Decision : 15.10.2024

....Appellants

....Respondent EEPTI SHARMA njab or r the respondent. nst the judgment and decree da istrict Judge, Faridkot, whereby s allowed and judgment and dec Senior Division), Faridkot, was learned Trial Court are that n that the order dated 06.12.19 Faridkot, order dated 09.08.19 and order dated 08.05.1994 pas Police, alongwith mercy petit the Home Secretary vide wh

cree set ssed tion

plaintiff's dismi null, void and ag

3.

constable in the duty for 74 day against him an

06.12.1991 pass and mercy petiti

4.

Up contended that after holding e considering all t was bad and he departmental en further submitte defend his case justice were foll

5.

Fro the learned Tria

¶1dat by

¶2inte

3.

issal from service and ordered an gainst the provisions of law and e case of the plaintiff/responden e Police Department in the year ys 19 hours and 39 minutes. nd ultimately, he was remove sed by the Senior Superintenden ion filed against this order were on notice, the defendant/app the order of dismissal of the re enquiry as per procedure and the facts. It is further submitted e remained absent from duties fr nquiry was conducted against hi ed in the reply that the respond and enquiry report is based on lowed. om the pleadings of the parties, th l Court:- Whether the order dated 06. ted 09.08.1992 passed by DIG a Home Secretary are illegal etc., If issue No.1 is proved, w erest on the financial benefits, if Whether the suit is not maint

nd subsequently up-held, are illeg service rules. nt in brief is that he was posted r 1989. He remained absent fr A departmental enquiry was h d from service vide order da nt of Police. The appeal, revis also dismissed. pellants contested the suit espondent from service was pas dismissal order was passed a d that service record of the plain from 20.04.1991 to 04.07.1991 im as per law and procedure. I dent was given full opportunity evidence and principles of natu he following issues were framed .12.1991 passed by S.S.P Faridk and order dated 01.03.1996 pas as alleged in the plaint? OPP whether the plaintiff is entitled f so at what rate? OPP tainable in the present form? OP

gal, d as rom held sion and ssed after ntiff and It is y to ural d by kot, ssed d to D

4.

5. OP

6. OP

7. OP

8.

6.

Aft learned trial Co judgment and d against the sam judgment dated

7.

Lea appellate Court consideration th learned trial Cou

8.

Per the judgment d allowing the ap therefore, the sa

9.

I h record of this ca

10.

learned Trial Co

Whether the plaintiff has no What is effect of non-servic PD Whether the suit is bad for n PD. Whether the suit is bad of PD Relief. ter hearing both the parties an ourt dismissed the suit filed by decree dated 16.12.1999. The p me, which was allowed by the l

01.06.2001. Hence the present a arned State counsel for the appel reversed the findings of learne he evidence on record, which urt in its judgment and decree da r contra, learned counsel for the dated 01.06.2001 passed by t ppeal and contends that there i ame be dismissed. have heard learned counsel for ase. e relevant portion of the judgme ourt is as under:-

locus-standi of file the suit? OPD e of notice under Section 80 CP non-payment of sufficient court f f non-joinder of necessary parti nd perusing the whole record, y the plaintiff-respondent vide plaintiff-respondent filed an app learned first Appellate Court, v appeal. llants contends that the learned f ed Trial Court without taking i has been discussed in detail, ated 16.12.1999. e respondent argues on the lines the learned first Appellate Co is no merit in the present app the parties and perused the wh ent dated 16.12.1999 passed by

D PC? fee? ies? its peal vide first into by s of ourt eal,

"12 Per day aga wit alle rem pro sta Sin pla rec wit

¶13foll

¶14tran rec con foll

¶2The enquiry file has been p rusal of the enquiry file shows th ys, 19 hours and 45 minutes. A ainst him. He was supplied with tnesses by the Enquiry Offi egations against him. The charg mained willfully absent from oceeded to record the stateme tements of Hira Singh MHC, Ka ngh MHC, Constable Sadhu Sin aintiff was present when the stat corded and was allowed the op tnesses. The plaintiff was then se

On 20.9.1991, the plaintiff lows:- "It is requested that in want to produce any w in defence," (The application is in Punjabi nslation thereof). On the reques corded which require to be rep nduct and discipline. The Englis lows:- "It is requested that I con presently posted at Police L

produced in this case as Ex. P hat plaintiff remained absent for departmental enquiry was initia h the summary of allegations, lis icer. The plaintiff admitted ge against the plaintiff was that duty. Still the Enquiry Offi nt of witnesses. He recorded abal Singh, Lines Officer, Darsh ngh and HC Dilbagh Singh. T tements of all these witnesses w pportunity to cross-examine th erved with charge-sheet. f moved an application stating n my departmental enquiry I do witness. Please record my statem language and above is the Eng st of the plaintiff, his statement w produced here as it will reflect sh translation of his statement is nstable Baljit Singh No. 2019 Lines We are two brothers and

P.4. r 74 st of t he ficer han were hese g as not ment lish was s as 9 is

¶15Off gui not from was ord

¶16was duty abs enq pla cau agr ent

residing at village Bariwal elder brother has separated very old and my father is a P residing with my. I am very my father The entire liability due to this I remained absen the Police Lines and getti completion of enquiry, I w discipline of the Police depar

After recording statement of ficer proceeded to record his fin ilty of the charges levelled aga tice was issued to the plaintiff p m service. The plaintiff gave re s called for personal hearing a der was passed by the Senior Sup

The point to be seen here is s to determine the fact that he i ty without any reasonable case, e plaintiff had pleaded guilty. Ev sence. It was in his mind that he quiry proceedings. All this refle aintiff that he was a non-seriou use more than official duty. He ricultural affairs than to remai tire evidence against the plaintif

la. We are agriculturists and d from the family. My Parents Patient of Paralysis. My Parents y much worried about the health y of agriculture work is on me a nt earlier. But now I am presen ing my enquiry completed. Af will resign from my job as p rtment. of the plaintiff in defence, Enqu ndings, wherein he held the plain ainst him. Thereafter, show ca proposing punishment of dismis eply to the show cause notice a and thereafter detailed punishm perintendent of Police, Faridkot. s that enquiry against the plain intentionally remained absent fr The evidence was led on this po ven in his statement he admitted will resign after competition of ects the attitude and conduct of us official who preferred dome wanted to look after his land a in in service. After discussing ff, Enquiry Officer also reached

my are are h of and t in fter per uiry ntiff ause ssal and ment

ntiff from oint, f the f the estic and

this also com pro con disc In wh

¶17by p out has reg tow

¶11Off dism con infl bei of t of cou

s conclusion that charges again o discussed this fact that th mpletion of enquiry. Learned co oject the findings of the Enquiry nclusion on the statement of p cussed the entire evidence prod addition, he also discussed th ich was very material.

Perusal of the enquiry file sh plaintiff in his statement is not c t in the charge-sheet, There is n s pre-determined to impose the gard, learned counsel for the wards the recommendation of L

7.1991 and the note put up in ficer is not a punishing auth missal from service of the pl nditions in the State as plaintiff ere is nothing that his recomm fluenced the enquiry proceeding ing the controlling officer of the recommendation and it does n the punishing authority. So far expert or appointing of Presen unsel for the plaintiff has not bee

st the plaintiff are duly proved. he plaintiff want to resign af ounsel for the plaintiff has tried officer by arguing that he based plaintiff only, while infact he duced during enquiry in his rep he defence version of the plain hows that whatever has been sta correct. No defect has been poin nothing that the punishing autho e punishment of dismissal. In plaintiff has drawn my attent Line Officer of Police Lines da this regard dated 16.7.1991. L hority. He has recommended laintiff in view of the prevail f had remained absent for 74 da mendation was ever acted upon gs or the punishing authorities, e plaintiff in Police Lines has m not reflect the pre-determined m as the non-providing of assista nting Officer is concerned, learn en able to show me the violation

He fter d to d his has ort. ntiff nted rity this tion Line ling ays. n or He ade mind nce ned

any not pla pro pla to abs affo cau

¶18tha disc has app not inte det disc suff cou ord hea tow has

y provision of Rule 16.24 of the t been able to show me a to wha aintiff due to non-appointing of ovision of Police Rules has be ere is nothing that the Enquiry aintiff in any manner. The plaint cross-examine the witnesses. sence and gave reasons for his a forded to the plaintiff. There is a use notice was illegal.

Learned counsel for the plain at at page 57 of the enquiry file charge of the plaintiff be issued s been imposed. It is against this peals and mercy petition. Use of t reflect the mind of the punis ended to be discharged and not tailed order in which all the ple cussed and the impugned order ffer from any illegality. There i unsel for the plaintiff that before der of punishment, the plaintiff aring. Learned counsel for the wards illegality of the order of S s not stated anything regardin

e Punjab Police Rules. He has a at prejudice has been caused to f the presenting officer and wh een violated due to this omissi y Officer was inimical towards tiff was allowed the full opportun In his statement he admitted absence. Personal hearing was a absolutely nothing as to how sh ntiff has out much stress on the f e, it has been ordered that order d, while the punishment of dismis s order the plaintiff has been fil f word 'discharge at page 57, d shing authority that plaintiff w t dismissed. Order of dismissal i eas taken by the plaintiff have b r of dimmissal from service do is no provision quoted by learn disposing of the appeal against was required to be given perso e plaintiff confined his argum Senior Superintendent of Police a ng orders passed in appeal. E

also hich ion. nity also how fact r of ssal ling does was is a een not ned onal ment and

cop pla rev how Xxx

¶21was pro

¶22pla

11.

learned first App "13 cas was pla imp gui wan opi asid app hel dat

pies of orders passed in appeal aintiff. No doubt the existence o vision is not denied, but it was fo w these orders are illegal, null a xx

xxxx

From the above discussion, I e plaintiff has failed to prove tha s dismissed from service are ovisions of law and service rules.

With these observations, t aintiff and in favour of the defend e relevant portion of the judgme pellate Court is as under :-

¶3A minute perusal of the evid se no oath was administered to t s appointed, No personal hea aintiff by the appellate/revisio posed upon the appellant-plain ilt, There is no evidence in the nted to submit his resignation inion, the findings of the leaned de as the citations referred to pellant are fully applicable to th ld that the order dated: 6.12.19 ted: 9.8.1992 passed by DIG an

have not been produced on file of the orders passed in appeal or the plaintiff to prove on file as nd void.

xxxx I am of the considered opinion t at the impugned orders whereby e illegal, null, void, against . this issue is decided against dants. ent dated 01.06.2001 passed by dence on the file reveals that in the witnesses, No presenting offi aring was given to the appella onal authorities. The punishm ntiff is not commensurate with inquiry that the appellant-plain n. In these circumstances, in d lower court are required to be o by the learned counsel for he facts of the present case and i 991 passed by SSP, Faridkot, or nd order dated 1.3.1996 passed

e by l or s to that y he this ficer ant-ment ntiff my set it is rder

ben on as s

12.

A p the learned first record, as categ

16.12.1999 as re the ground that was appointed, n categorically ex trial Court that a summary of alle allegations leve that on 29.09.19

13.

As learned Trial Co following effect

e Home Secretary are illegal an nefits of his service alongwith in the amount due to him. I accord e impugned judgement & decree stated above with costs. Decree s perusal of the judgments passed b t Appellate Court without taking gorically discussed by the learne eproduced above has allowed th no oath was administered to th no personal hearing was given to xplained in the judgment dated a departmental enquiry was initia egation, list of witnesses by the E eled against him. It is further o 991, the plaintiff moved an applic "It is requested that in my d to produce any witness. defence," reproduced above, it is further n ourt in para No.14 that the statem t:- "It is requested that I con presently posted at Police L

nd the plaintiff is entitled to all terest at the rate of 9 % per ann dingly, accept this appeal, set as and decree the suit of the appell sheet be prepared." by both the Courts below show t g into consideration the evidence d Trial Court in its judgment da he appeal filed by the respondent he witnesses, no presenting offi o the appellant, whereas it has b

16.12.1999 passed by the learn ated and plaintiff was supplied w Enquiry Officer and he admitted observed by the learned trial Co cation stating as follows:- departmental enquiry I do not w Please record my statement noted in the judgment passed by ment of plaintiff was recorded to nstable Baljit Singh No. 2019 Lines we are two brothers and

num side lant that e on t on ficer een ned with ourt want in 9 is

14.

It h natural justice respondent was 79 days, 19 hour

15.

In v first Appellate Accordingly, th

01.06.2001 pas judgment and de

16.

Dec

17.

Pen

October 15, 202 tripti

Wh

Wh

residing at village Bariwal elder brother has separated very old and my father is a p residing with me. I am very my father. The entire liabili due to this I remained absen the Police Lines and getti completion of enquiry, I w discipline of the Police depar has been noted down by the lea were followed by the respon dismissed from service on the g rs and 39 minutes from his duty. view of the above, I do not agr Court in allowing the appeal he present appeal is allowed ssed by the learned first Appe ecree passed by the learned trial cree-sheet be prepared. nding applications, if any, also st

(SU

hether speaking/non-speaking : Speaki hether reportable : Yes

la. We are agriculturists and d from the family. My parents patient of Paralysis. My parents y much worried about the health ty of agriculture work is on me a nt earlier. But now I am presen ing my enquiry completed. Af will resign from my job as p rtment. arned trial Court that principles dent and thereafter, the plaint ground that he remained absent . ree with the reasoning given by filed by the plaintiff/responde and judgment and decree da ellate Court is set aside and Court is upheld. tand disposed of. UDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE ing

my are are h of and t in fter per s of tiff-for