STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. HARI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 3.2.2001 passed by a Learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, dismissing in limine the second appeal filed on behalf of the State of Punjab (the Appellant). As a result, the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the trial court and the first appellate court in favour of the plaintiff-respondent were upheld.

(2.) The respondent joined the Punjab Police as a constable and on 1.4.1999 he was promoted to the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector. According to the respondent, his promotion as Assistant Sub-Inspector was made by an order passed by Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ferozepur. In 1993, the respondent was subjected to a departmental proceeding on the charge that as in-charge, of the escort of the Deputy Commissioner Ferozepur, he, in league with LC Latwinder Singh, driver, stole 3339 liters of petrol by making wrong entries in the log book. In the departmental enquiry the charge against the respondent was established and on the basis of the enquiry report the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur passed the order, dated 28.2.1995 giving the respondent the punishment of withholding five annual increments with cumulative effect with the further direction for recovery of half of the cost of the stolen amount of petrol at the price prevailing at the relevant time. Against the order passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, the respondent preferred a departmental appeal. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ferozepur by order, dated 5.7.1995 dismissed the appeal subject to reducing the period of withholding the annual increments from five years to two years.

(3.) The respondent then took the matter to the court and filed civil suit No. 212 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ferozepur seeking a declaration that the punishment order passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police and confirmed (subject to reduction) by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, was illegal, inoperative, null and void. He further sought consequential direction for release of his annual increments with interest at the rate of 18% per annum, and a permanent injunction restraining the defendant authorities from making recovery of 50% of the price of stolen petrol. The punishment order was challenged primarily on the ground that the respondents promotion as Sub Inspector of Police was made by the order of Deputy Inspector General, and hence, the Senior Superintendent of Police had no authority to pass any punishment order against him. The order of the Senior Superintendent of Police, dated 28.2.1995 was, therefore, without any authority or competence. The other ground on which the punishment order was challenged was that copies of certain documents as asked for by the respondents were not Supplied to him in the course of the departmental enquiry.