STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. MOHINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mohinder Singh son of Rulia Ram was constable on the rolls of Hoshiarpur District. His constabulary No. was 525/HPR. He was enrolled on 1.6.1971. After serving a few days in police lines, Hoshiarpur, he joined Punjab Armed Police Training Centre, Jalandhar Cantt, Distt. Jalandhar from where he completed the training. He served in District Hoshiarpur Police at different places on different duties. He was dealt with departmentally on the allegation that on 22.7.1985 while posted as gun man with Ashok Mahajan of Dasyuya District, he absented and was found in drunken state in front of old Tehsil Dasuya creating nuisance. As a result of the departmental enquiry, he was punished with the punishment of forfeiture of two years approved service by the Superintendent of Police (Detective) vide order No. 35-39/37 dated 8.1.1986. He went in appeal against that order before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jalandhar Range, Jalandhar Cantt on 7.2.1986. Instead of accepting this appeal, the Additional Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jalandhar Range, Jalandhar Cantt vide order dated 14.8.1986 dismissed him from service saying that the punishment of forfeiture of two years approved service was not commensurate with the misconduct imputed to him. He went in appeal against the order dated 14.8.1986 dismissing him from service before the Director General of Police (Punjab), Chandigarh on 13.9.1986, who vide order dated 28.1.1987 reinstated him into service from the date of dismissal i.e. 14.8.1986 and remanded the case to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jalandhar Range as there were material irregularities in the order dated 14.8.1986. He was reinstated into service with effect from 14.8.1986 in the wake of the order of the Director General of Police Punjab, Chandigarh dated 28.1.1987. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jalandhar Range, Jalandhar Cantt issued him show cause notice. He gave reply to that show cause notice. After considering his reply to the show cause notice, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jalandhar Range, Jalandhar dismissed him from service with effect from 29.7.1987. He went in appeal before the Director General of Police, Punjab, Chandigarh who vide order dated 24.11.1987 dismissed his appeal. He thus stood dismissed from service with effect from 29.7.1987. He filed suit for declaration challenging the order dated 29.7.1987 of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jalandhar Range, Jalandhar Cantt dismissing him from service as being illegal, invalid, null and void, ineffective, in violation of service rules, punitive, arbitrary, non-speaking, contrary to law with all consequential reliefs flowing from the setting aside of the order dated 29.7.1987 dismissing him from service. It was alleged in the plaint that before holding departmental enquiry, preliminary enquiry was not held nor sanction of the District Magistrate as envisaged in Punjab Police Rule 16, 38(1) was sought as he committed a criminal offence, if any under Section 34 of the Police Act in connection with his official relations with public. Without obtaining sanction under Rule 16.38(1) from the District Magistrate, the entire departmental enquiry is null and void. On appeal by him against the order of Superintendent of Police (Detective) Hoshiarpur, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jalandhar Range, Jalandhar Cantt could not enhance his punishment. He could either reduce the punishment or dismiss his appeal altogether. No reason was given why the punishment imposed upon him by the punishing authority was required to be enhanced Merely observing that punishment is not comensurating with the gravity of offence is no ground to enhance the punishment. It was alleged in the plaint that the Director General of Police, Punjab, Chandigarh acted illegally while remanding case to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jalandhar Range, Jalandhar Cantt, who could not have reviewed his earlier order, Remand of the case by the Director General of Police was absolutely against law and facts. Fact that he had rendered 15 years of unblemished service was not taken into account by any of these authorities.

(2.) Defendant-State of Punjab contested the suit of the plaintiff urging that the provisions of rule 16.38(i) of the Punjab Police Rules are not attracted in this case. It was urged that he order of Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jalandhar Range, Jalandhar Cantt passed after remand by the Director General of Police, Punjab, Chandigarh was quite in order. Order of the Director General of Police dismissing the appeal against that order was quite in order.

(3.) On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court :