PUNJAB STATE Vs. NARAIN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CONSTABLE Narain Singh was dismissed from service by the order of Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar dated 14.8.1980. He challenged his dismissal from service effected by SSP Amritsar vide the said order by means of suit for declaration instituted on 6.4.1981. It was alleged in the plaint that he joined service as Constable about 19 years ago. To his misfortune, he earned the displeasure of some officers posted at Police Station, Bhikhiwind. It was in that background that he was ordered by Munshi Gur -dev Singh, who was a constable very junior to him to keep surveillance on one accused, who was lying tied to a tree in Police Post, Kacha Paca. Allegation cooked against him was that he misbehaved with Munshi Gur -dev Singh and did not obey his orders as it was not within the power of Munshi Gurdev Singh to order him as he himself was a constable and very junior to him. It was further alleged by him that he could not be party to the torture being inflicted on that accused person. An inquiry was held into the said allegation. It was alleged in the plaint that no copy of the complaint nor any other document was supplied to him either by the Inquiry Officer or by the punishing authority. He was not given any opportunity to produce his defence. He was not allowed any facility to prepare cross -examination of the witnesses examined against him. He filed written statement of his defence. Inquiry Officer did not consider the written statement of his defence. He recorded a cryptic finding holding him guilty of the charges. He had gone out of the way to hold him guilty. Punishing authority without going through the file and relevant documents issued him show cause notice calling upon him to represent against the proposed punishment of dismissal. He placed all the facts before the punishing authority in his representation and asked for personal hearing. Punishing authority did not give him personal hearing. He did not record what he had stated before the punishing authority over and above what he had submitted through his written statement and passed the order dismissing him from service, which was arbitrary, cryptic, in violation of the rules of justice and the provisions of the Constitution of India, illegal, void and unenforceable. It was prayed that despite that order he continued to be in the service of the State of Punjab with all the powers and privileges of the rank he was holding before the said order was passed.

(2.) DEFENDANT -State of Punjab contested the suit of the plaintiff. Plaintiff was enrolled as temporary constable on 8.8.1961. He was uneducated. During his entire service, he had earned seven commendation certificates against the following punishments : -

(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed : -