Hans Raj v. State of Punjab and Ors

IN T

Hans Raj State of Punjab

CORAM : HO

Present: Ms

for

Mr SUDEEPTI SH

The

05.09.2003 pass the civil suit file was dismissed filed against the learned Addition

2.

The 23 Battalion. D that if he gets j relieved. There CRPF vide orde proceedings.

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

RS Da

VERSUS

ON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUD s. Sehar Navjeet Singh Sandhu, A the appellant. r. Maninder Singh, Sr.DAG, Punj -.-

HARMA, J (Oral). e present appeal is preferred aga sed by the Additional Civil Jud ed by the appellant against order and judgment and decree dated e judgment and decree dated 05. nal District Judge, Patiala. e brief facts of the case are that During service, he obtained no o ob in Punjab Police, CRPF wil eafter, the appellant became abs er dated 09.03.1993 dismissed h

JAB AND HARYANA ARH SA-4611-2004 (O&M) ate of Decision : 16.10.2024

....Appellant

....Respondent EEPTI SHARMA Advocate njab. ainst the judgment and decree da ge (Sr. Division), Patiala, wher rs dated 12.06.1998 and 20.04.20 d 26.05.2004, whereby the app .09.2003 was also dismissed by the appellant was serving in CR objection certificate on 11.09.19 l have no objection and he will sent and Commandant 23 Battal him from service after departmen

ated eby peal RPF l be lion

3.

The Constable in the After verificatio by I.G. PAP Jal Sr. No.2. D.I.G Indian Reserve vide memo date (appellant) was certificate on 11 the CRPF has no absence, the app were started and the appellant an appellant filed d dated 20.04.200

4.

He dismissed vide Civil Judge (Sr which was dism judgment and de SUBMISSIONS

5.

Lea have erred in ho the Punjab Poli report and rejec

e appellant applied to S.S.P e Police Department and he was on of the character of the appella andhar Cantt from the list of S.P G of Police vide order dated 23. Battalion No.1/406 and sent him ed 07.01.1995 wrote to the offi previously working in CRPF 23

1.09.1991 for his appointment i o objection and subsequently, he pellant was dismissed from servi d on the basis of enquiry report, nd the appellant was dismissed departmental appeal which was

¶02filed civil suit challenging judgment and decree dated 05. . Division), Patiala. Thereafter missed by the learned Addition ecree dated 26.05.2004. Hence, S OF LEARNED COUNSEL F arned counsel for the appellant c olding that the appellant has con ice as SPO. Further that dism ction of appeal by DIG, based o

Mansa for his appointment appointed as S.P.O on 08.07.19 ant, he was appointed as Consta P.Os. Name of the appellant wa .04.1994 allocated the appellant m to First Reserve Battalion. D icer of commandant that Hans 3 Battalion and he got no object in the Punjab Police. In that eve e became absent and on the basis ice. Thereafter enquiry proceedi , a show cause notice was issued from service on 12.06.1998. T subsequently dismissed vide or the dismissal order, which w

09.2003 by the learned Additio r, he filed appeal against the sam nal District Judge, Patiala vide the present appeal. FOR THE PARTIES contends that both the Courts bel ncealed his dismissal while join missal order was based on enqu on the opinion of District Attorn

as

¶992able as at t to DIG Raj tion ent, s of ngs d to The rder was onal me, its low ning uiry

and applicabilit appellant applie Objection Certif

6.

Per rightly dismisse appreciation of appeal.

7.

I h record of the cas

8.

It i and obtained "N that the departm Punjab. In case CRPF Departm objection, he rem

9.

Fur was no relieving

10.

On was not dismiss

11.

A p appellant was S the appellant. A also Senior Sup shows that depa following the pr

ty of Punjab Police Rule 12.7 ed for the post of constable in th ficate" from CRPF. r contra, learned State counsel c ed the civil suit as well the a f evidence on record. Therefor have heard learned counsel for se. is an admitted case of the appel No Objection Certificate" from ment has no objection in case he of selection, the appellant was ment, but it is admitted by the mained absent from duty. rther, he did not join as SPO t g order from the CRPF departme ne of the ground taken in the gro ed from service by the competen perusal of the record shows th Senior Superintendent of Police, As per Punjab Police Rules, appo erintendent of Police of the Dist artmental enquiry was conducted rinciples of natural justice. The

¶7She further contends that he Punjab Police, after getting " contends that both the Courts h appeal filed by the appellant a re, prays for dismissal of pres the parties and perused the wh llant that he was working in CR CRPF on 11.09.1991 to the eff is appointed in Police Departme required to seek relieving from appellant that after obtaining through proper channel since th ent. ounds of appeal is that the appell nt authority. hat the appointing authority of Mansa and this fact is admitted ointing authority of the appellan trict. A perusal of the record furt d in accordance with law and a appellant was given list of char

"No have after sent hole RPF ffect ent, here lant d by nt is ther after

and show cause ordered to be c appellant befor misconduct. W witnesses cited given an opportu

Up appellant was g consideration of appellant. All th heard and there

12.

A p as first appellate suit as well as a judgment. Ther

13.

In v decree dated 0 Patiala, and ju Additional Distr is dismissed. Ho

14.

Dec

15.

Pen

October 16, 202 tripti

Wh

Wh

notice. After taking reply to th onducted by appointing an enq re him supplied all the doc When the appellant opted to con in the list of enquiry were exa unity to lead his evidence in defe on completion, enquiry officer s given show cause notice proposi f reply filed by appellant, the C his shows that the appellant was is no violation of principles of n perusal of the record further sho e Court after considering the evid appeal filed by the appellant by p refore, the same requires no inter view of the above, I do not find

5.09.2003 passed by the Addi udgment and decree dated 26 rict Judge, Patiala. Accordingly owever, the parties are left to bea cree sheet be prepared according nding applications, if any, also st

(SU

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

e charge-sheet, regular enquiry w quiry officer who on appearance cuments including imputation ntest the enquiry, the departmen amined and therefore appellant w ence. submitted his report. Thereafter ng punishment and thereafter up Competent Authority, dismissed granted every opportunity of be natural justice. ows that learned trial Court as w dence on record have dismissed passing the well reasoned, speak rference by this Court. d any infirmity in the judgment itional Civil Judge (Sr. Divisio

6.05.2004 passed by the learn , the present regular second app ar their own costs. gly. tand disposed of. UDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE ing

was e of of ntal was pon eing well king and on), ned