STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. NAZAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendants appeal and has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 16.4.1996 passed by Additional District Judge, Sangrur, who affirmed the judgment and decree dated 31.5.1995 passed by Sub Judge 1st Class, Sangrur, who decreed the suit of Nazar Singh plaintiff for declaration as prayed for.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that Nazar Singh is working as Head Constable in the Police Department of the Punjab Government. He filed a suit for declaration that the orders dated 4.4.1990 and 26.11.1990 passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur dismissing his representation and appeal and the orders not confirming him as Head Constable are illegal, null and void. The case set up by the plaintiff in the trial Court was that he joined the Police Department as Constable on 25.8.1977 and was promoted as Head Constable on 1.4.1982, after passing the Lower School Course by dint of his hard and honest working. The service record of the plaintiff did not carry any adverse entry except the impugned adverse confidential report for the period from 1.4.1988 to 31.12.1988. The other Head Constables, who were deputed for training at Phillaur and who also passed the Lower School Course along with the plaintiff have been confirmed. The plaintiff was senior to those Head Constables. The orders of confirmation were passed on 16.9.1989 and 31.10.1999 but the confirmation of the plaintiff was stopped by defendant No. 2 illegally w.e.f. 1.7.1989 and 1.1.1991. The other Constables who had passed the Lower School Course at Phillaur along with the plaintiff were confirmed vide orders stated 16.9.1989, 31.8.1990 and 26.10.1990. The plaintiff was not confirmed because of the adverse entry for the period from 1.4.1988 to 31.12.1988 against which he made the representation. The grouse of the plaintiff is that his case was shelved by Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur because of the adverse entry for the period from 1.4.1988 to 31.13.1988 and the authorities have committed grave illegality. As per the plaintiff, he could be kept on probation only for two years which ended on 1.4.1984. The entry for the period from 1.4.1988 to 31.12.1988 could not be taken into consideration when the orders of confirmation of his junior employees were passed on 16.9.1989 and 31.10.1991. Otherwise also, when these orders were passed, his representation against the adverse remarks was pending. His appeal was also pending. The order rejecting his representation is totally cryptic and, therefore, such cryptic orders could not be taken into consideration by the authorities to ignore the plaintiff from confirmation. It was also pleaded by the plaintiff that R.S. Brar, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sunam also gave good reports to him regarding his work and conduct. There was no complaint against him from the public or from the senior officers. His representation was rejected arbitrarily on 4.4.1990. He filed an appeal before the DIG, Patiala through proper channel and the same was not sent of DIG, Patiala by the defendant No. 2 on the plea that the same is not legally maintainable and it was rejected on 26.11.1990. As stated above, the case of the plaintiff is that when his representation and statutory appeal were pending, the adverse entry for the period from 1.4.1988 to 31.12.1988 could not be taken into consideration. The plaintiff was not heard before passing the orders dated 4.4.1990, 16.9.1989, 31.8.1990, 26.10.1990 and 1.10.1991 by defendant No. 2. It was also pleaded by the plaintiff that as per Rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules (here-in-after referred 'the Rules'), on the expiry of two years, the plaintiff would be deemed to have been completed the probation and, therefore, he was entitled to confirmation on the expiry of two years or within a reasonable time, but the orders of confirmation were passed in the year 1989 when his juniors were confirmed and he was ignored. With this background the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and made a prayer as stated above.

(3.) Notice of the suit was given to the defendants. Who filed the written statement and denied the allegations. According to the defendants, the plaintiff was promoted as Head Constable on 15.6.1982 and he could not be confirmed due to bad service record and adverse A.C.R. for the period from 1.4.1988 to 9.12.1988. The defendants admitted the rejection of the representation of the plaintiff. According to the defendants the adverse remarks were recorded by Shri B.P.S. Brar, DSP as there was a complaint of corruption against the plaintiff and the plaintiff took less interest in the investigation. The plaintiff was rightly ignored on account of his bad A.C.R.