STATE OF HARYANA Vs. DHARAMBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING unsuccessful before the Trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court, the State has filed this appeal to challenge the impugned judgment through which the order of discharge of respondent-Constable Dharam Singh has been set-aside.

(2.) RESPONDENT-plaintiff had challenged the order of his discharge not on the ground that this was done without justification but on the ground that it was a motivated action taken with malice on change of Senior Superintendent of the Police of the District. RESPONDENT-plaintiff was appointed as Constable by S.P., Jind, and he joined the service on 30.4.1992. As per the respondent- plaintiff, his appointment was after following due process. The S.P., who had made this appointment was transferred on 3/4.5.1992 and on his place one Sh.B.K.Sinha joined as S.P. New S.P. started terminated the services of the Constables appointed by his predecessor statedly with an aim to accommodate his own persons. To substantiate this aspect, the respondent-plaintiff would point out that the new S.P. first directed that all the Constables appointed should be made to undergo a fresh physical examination. On this basis, he ordered discharge of 12 constables in May 1992 itself. It is pointed out that all these 12 Constables were subsequently reinstated, as per the directions of this Court.

(3.) RESPONDENT-plaintiff accordingly filed a civil suit, challenging the order of his discharge. Pleading that the order was passed on wrong facts and with malafides, it was also pleaded that the order being on account of absence was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing and was a non-speaking order and, thus, could not be sustained.