DULA SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiffs second appeal directed against the judgment and decree of learned District Judge, Amritsar whereby on acceptance of first appeal preferred by the defendant, namely, the Union of India, judgment and decree of trial Court decreeing the suit was set aside and as a consequence thereof suit of the plaintiff dismissed.

(2.) IN brief, the facts are that the plaintiff was enrolled in Punjab Armed Police on July 25, 1964. Later, when Boarder Security Force was formed, plaintiff was taken on its strength with effect from 2.10.1966. He was promoted as Naik with effect from 1.2.1968 and as head Constable with effect from 13.8.1971. Plaintiff asked for five days, casual leave from 17.3.1980 to 21.3.1980 but after availing of said leave he did not resume his duties. As a result Court of Enquiry was ordered under the relevant provision of Border Security Force Act and the rules framed thereunder. Based upon the opinion of Court of Enquiry, plaintiff was declared deemed to be deserter. Subsequently, show cause notice dated 10.6.1980 was sent to the plaintiff proposing to terminate his services by way of dismissal. Plaintiff did not file any reply there to and as such vide order dated 10.7.1980, plaintiff was dismissed from service by the Commandant. Plaintiff challenged order dated 10.7.1980 by filing suit out of which the present second appeal has arisen. In the plaint, plaintiff submitted that while he was on sanctioned leave in his village, he was falsely implicated in a case under Sections 323 and 324 of Indian Penal Code. Plaintiff was convicted under Sections 148/149 of Indian Penal Code by the Judicial Magistrate, Ajnala but in appeal vide judgment dated 20.7.1981, he was acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar. Plaintiff alleged that when he reported for duty in the Battalion, he was told that because of his absence from duty, his services have been terminated. Plaintiff alleged that no show cause notice was ever delivered to him by the postal authorities or through departmental person or through local police. He contended that in absence of show cause notice, he could not make proper representation and, therefore, order terminating his services is totally illegal being against the principles of natural justice. Plaintiff further contended that his absence was neither wilful nor he committed any misconduct as it was his duty to attend the Court in a case in which he was falsely implicated.

(3.) IN order to appreciate the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, it is necessary to take notice of Section 11 of the Act and Rule 177, 20 and 21 of the Rules which were in force at the relevant time. Section 11 and Rules 20 and 21 read as under: -