STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. DASONDHA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI Dasondha Singh joined the Punjab Police on 14.10.1991. He was given constabulary No. 2606/Jull. He was undergoing basic training course in R.T.C. Jahan Khelan in March, 1992. On 1.3.1992, he fell ill. His father was informed by the Incharge Training Centre, Jahan Khelan that he was lying ill. His father reached the Training Centre and found him lying unconscious. With the permission of the Incharge Training Centre, he took him to his village. Upto 29.4.1992, he remained under treatment of the various Doctors and then reported back for duty. He was treated as absent from duty with effect from 1.3.1992 to 29.4.1992. Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar issued show cause notice calling upon him to show cause as to why he be not discharged from service under Rule 12.21 of Punjab Police Rules (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Rules') on account of absence from duty. He was discharged from service vide order dated 16.7.1992 by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar. He filed suit for declaration whereby he challenged order dated 16.7.1992 of Senior Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar discharging him from service. It was alleged in the plaint that he could not have been discharged from service summarily when the allegation against him was that of absence from duty. Absence from duty is a mis -conduct. There should have been an enquiry according to the procedure laid down in Rule 16.24 of the Rules. He should have been given an opportunity of defending himself against the allegation of mis -conduct. No enquiry was held into the charge of absence from duty. Order discharging him from service was astigmatic in character and, therefore, there should have been an enquiry so that at that enquiry, he could prove his innocence. He should have been given opportunity of personal hearing before discharging him from service. Mere fad that he was absent from duty for a few days could give no indication that he could not be an efficient police official. He prayed that the impugned order dated 16.7.1992 be declared as illegal, void, unlawful and unconstitutional, inoperative, ineffective and as such not binding on him and further that he continues to be in the service of the State of Punjab with salary, allowances etc. as if he was never discharged from service.

(2.) DEFENDANT -State of Punjab contested the suit of the plaintiff urging that he was on probation. During the period of probation he could be discharged under Rule 12.21 of the Rules. No enquiry was required to have been made before the discharging him from service. His work and conduct was not satisfactory. He did not take any interest in the basic training. His reply to the show cause notice was considered. His entire service record was also considered. On the perusal of his reply to the show cause notice and his service record, Senior Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar concluded that he was unlikely to become a good police officer. Opportunity of personal hearing was given to him, but he did not avail that opportunity.

(3.) VIDE order dated 16.1.1996 Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar dismissed the plaintiffs suit in view of his findings that the impugned order removing him from service passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar was quite legal, valid and proper and was in conformity to the Rules.