STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. CHARANJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHARANJIT Singh was appointed as constable on 1.5.70 on the rolls of Patiala Police by SSP Patiala. He was transferred from District Patiala to District Sangrur. Thereafter, he was promoted as Head Constable and posted to District Ropar. He was placed under suspension. During the period of suspension, he went to Barnala Court in connection with his evidence. He attended the court there. He came to know that his wife was seriously ill. He went to his village and found his wife seriously ill. He applied for the grant of leave on the ground of illness of his wife. He received no reply. He went on sending applications for grant of leave. No intimation was given to him accepting or rejecting his applications for leave. He reported back on 3.12.84 vide DDK No. 27 at 1 -10 P.M. He could not report for duty earlier in the general roll call held on 30.11.84 as he had reached late after attending the office of SP Ropar. He was proceeded against departmentally on account of wilful absence for 52 days. Inquiry was conducted against him. After inquiry, show cause notice was given to him to which he gave reply. Vide order No. 6 - 16/85/5064 -67/E dated 15.4.85 passed by SP Ropar, he was dismissed from service. He went in appeal, which was dismissed by DIG Patiala Range, Patiala. He went in revision against the order of dismissal to the Director General -cum -Inspector General of Police which was dismissed on 4.12.85. In revision, he challenged the order of dismissal passed by SP Roper and DIG Patiala Range, Patiala on grounds inter alia that he was under suspension and when he was under suspension he was not supposed to have been put on the discharge of any duty and, therefore, he could not be dismissed on the ground of absence from duty. Inquiry was conducted by an Inspector, Police, who was an upper subordinate and not an officer within the meaning of Punjab Police Rules and, therefore, inquiry conducted by such an officer was illegal. While passing the order of dismissal, SP condoned the period of absence as leave with pay. If that was so, the period of absence stood condoned and after the period of absence was condoned, he could not have been treated as absent and dismissed on the ground of charge of absence. No personal hearing was given to him as envisaged in Rule 16.24(1)(9) of the Punjab Police Rules. While dismissing him from service, no regard was had to his length of service so that instead of dismissing him from service, he could be retired compulsorily and thus enabled to earn pension. Further the SP did not apply his mind whether absence was an act involving the gravest act of misconduct on his part and he was incorrigible rendering him completely unfit for police service. On these allegations, Charanjit Singh challenged his dismissal from service brought about by the order of SP Roper endorsed by DIG and Director General of Police -cum -Inspector General of Police, Punjab Chandigarh in appeal and revision respectively.

(2.) DEFENDANT -State of Punjab contested the suit of the plaintiff urging that his dismissal was quite in order brought about after an inquiry and full application of mind and was in tune with the law and procedure governing the conduct of such inquiries. It was denied that he applied for leave. There was no question of sending any reply to him. His reply to show cause notice was fully considered. Personal hearing was also given to him. During suspension, plaintiff was required to attend P.T./parade and roll calls.

(3.) Vide order dated 3.12.1990, Sub Judge 1st Class, Patiala decreed the plaintiffs suit and held his dismissal form service as illegal, null and void having no effect on his right to continue in service with all arrears of salary, allowances etc. with interest at the rate of 12% per cent per annum from the date of suit to the date of decree and 6% per annum from the date of decree onwards till realization as if order dismissing him from service had never been passed, in view of his findings, that merely because the plaintiff happened to be absent time and again was not an act involving incorrigibility and the gravest act of misconduct on his part, in this case, he was not shown to have been absent on earlier occasions. It was also found that during the period, he was absent, he could not be taken to have been absent during the discharge of some duty as he was not put on any duty. It was also found that when in the impugned order itself SP ordered the treatment of the period of absence as leave with pay, absence stood condoned and absence could not be viewed as the basis of any charge. It was also found that the punishing authority did not apply mind to this aspect of the case whether absence was the gravest act of misconduct on his part involving incorrigibility rendering him completely unfit for police service. It was also found that before passing order of dismissal punishing authority should have applied mind to the length of his service so as to consider his suitability for being compulsorily retired.