(1.) Leave granted. Heard counsel for both the parties.
(2.) This appeal arises from the order of a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the Second Appeal preferred by the State of Punjab in limine. The respondent was police constable. A disciplinary inquiry was held against him for unauthorised absence from duty. At the conclusion of the disciplinary inquiry, the Superintendent of Police, Ropar, gave a notice to the respondent calling upon him to show-cause why he should not be dismissed from service. Respondent submitted his reply. At that stage, it appears, he was transferred from Ropar to District Sangrur. From District Sangrur he was transferre to District Patiala. The relevant file relating to disciplinary proceedings was also transferred to Patiala. On April 25, 1984 an order was passed dismissing the respondent from service. The order is signed by "Superintendent of Police, Patiala". At the foot of the said order, the names of persons to whom copies of the said order were sent are mentioned. Thereafter, there is the signature of "Sri J. P. Virdi, I. P. S. Superintendent of Police, Patiala".
(3.) The respondent filed a suit challenging the order of his dismissal. The trial Court decreed the suit on the only ground that the order of dismisal has not been passed by the Superintendent of Police in-charge of District but by Shri. J. P. Virdi who was only a Superintendent of Police (Headquarters). The trial Court was of the opinion that only the Superintendent of Police, in-charge of the District is competent to dismiss a police constable under the relevant rules. This finding of the trial Court has been affirmed by the learned District Judge on appeal. The learned District judge observed that Sri. J.P. Virdi was not in-charge of the District at the relevant time and, therefore, not competent to pass the order of dismissal. The Second Appeal preferred by the State of Punjab has been dismissed by the High Court in limine, as stated above.