STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. BALKAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) State of Punjab and its officers have filed the present appeal and has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 10.12.1992 passed by the Sub Judge Ist Class, Jalandhar, who decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent and granted a declaration that the order passed by the inspector General of Police, P.A.P. and Operations, Jalandhar Cantt, conveyed to the Commandant, 13th Battalion, P.A.P., Jalandhar Cantt., vide his memo No. 5033/CRC dated 17.5.1988 whereby the revision of the plaintiff was rejected, the order dated 1.7.1987 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, PAP (Admn.), Jalandhar, Cantt, rejecting the appeal of the plaintiff and the order dated 9.4.1987 passed by the Commandant, 13th Battalion, PAP, Jalandhar Cantt., dismissing the plaintiff from services are illegal void, unlawful, unconstitutional, arbitrary, capacious, null, wanton, discriminatory, mala fide, against the provisions of law, service rules and rules of natural justice, and that the plaintiff continued to be in service on the same terms and conditions which were in existence prior to 9.4.1987. Hence, he is also entitled to all the rights, privileges and emoluments, etc.

(2.) The case set up by the plaintiff before the trial Court was that he joined P.A.P. Jalandhar Cantt. as a Constable on 7.4.1975. After completing his course, he was inducted as a full-fledged Constable. His work and conduct was to the satisfaction of his superior officers. On 27.11.1986, the plaintiff was posted for security duty at P.A.P. Headquarters, Jalandhar Cantt. He applied for one month's leave as there was some family dispute. The leave application was declined. The plaintiff went to his village as his presence was essential and stayed there up to 27.12.1986. The plaintiff was treated absent from duty from 27.11.1986 to 27.12.1986 and was ordered to be proceeded against departmentally. shri Joginder Singh, Inspector, was entrusted with the enquiry, the enquiry was conducted against the provisions of service rules and against the principles of natural justice. A show cause notice was given to the plaintiff. The plaintiff submitted a detailed reply to the show cause notice. However, he was dismissed by the Commandant vide order dated 9.4.1987, Ex. P-3. His appeal against the said order was also dismissed by the D.I.G. vide order dated 1.7.1987. His revision was also rejected by the I.G.P. P.A.P. and Operations. According to the plaintiff, these orders are illegal. The allegations levelled against the plaintiff did not constitute the commission of any misconduct. The copies of the documents relied upon by the department were not supplied and no opportunity of personal hearing was given to him. The plaintiff gave a notice under section 80, Civil Procedure Code, before filing the suit. With these allegations, the plaintiff sought the declaration as stated above.

(3.) Notice of the suit was given to the defendants which filed the written statement. According to the defendants, the work and conduct of the plaintiff was not satisfactory. The inquiry was conducted according to the service rules and the provisions of natural justice were fully complied with. An irrelevant reply to the show cause notice was given by the plaintiff and it was considered by the punishing authority. Other material allegations of the plaintiff were also denied by the Department and it was prayed that the suit be dismissed.