STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. SURJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent-plaintiff was appointed as constable in the Punjab Police in the year 1973. He was served with a charge sheet. Exhibit D-3 alleging that he had been repeatedly absent from duty during the period from 10.9.1986 to 27.1.1987. Respondent contested the charges and took a defence that he was ill during the aforesaid period. Decision to hold a departmental inquiry was taken and departmental inquiry was held. The Enquiry Officer held that the charges alleged against the respondent were duly proved. On this, a show cause notice, Exhibit D-5 was given to the respondent along with a copy of the inquiry report, with a view to give him an opportunity of making his submissions against the findings in the inquiry report. The respondent was also given opportunity of being heard in person. Finally, vide order Exhibit D-8, the respondent was dismissed from service, with effect from 25.11.1988. The disciplinary authority observed that the respondent had not taken any leave nor given any intimation of his alleged illness and, therefore, his defence was not valid. The respondent preferred appeal which was dismissed and the revision petition was also dismissed by the revisional authority.

(2.) Respondent plaintiff filed a suit on 10.9.1990, for declaration that the order of dismissal passed against him was void. It was submitted that the punishing authority failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (for short "the Rules") and the Standing Instructions and, therefore, the order of punishment was vitiated. Suit was contested and it was submitted that the plaintiff had remained absent from duty for about 46 days and the departmental inquiry was held in accordance with law wherein the plaintiff had full opportunity to defend himself; reply of the plaintiff to the show cause notice was duly considered and the order of dismissal from service was valid; appeal and the revision filed by the plaintiff were also dismissed in accordance with the principles of natural justice and the relevant rules.

(3.) Trial Court decreed the suit and declared the punishing order to be void. Trail court further declared that the plaintiff shall be deemed to have continued in service as if the dismissal order was never passed; plaintiff was entitled to salary, emoluments and the benefits attached to his post with 12% interest from the date of decree till the date of payment. It was observed that the order of punishment did not show that the punishing authority was alive to rule 16.2 of the Rules which provided the punishment of dismissal shall be awarded only for the gravest act of misconduct or when cumulative effect of continued misconduct proved incorrigibility and unfitness for police service; regard shall be had to length of service of the officer and his claim to pension. It was further observed that there was no evidence that the act of the plaintiff amounted to gravest act of misconduct or that the cumulative effect of continued misconduct of the plaintiff proved incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police service; the punishing authority had not taken into consideration the length of service of the plaintiff and his claim to pension, before passing the dismissal order; there was nothing to show as per the past record of the plaintiff that he was absent from duty on earlier occasions. Apart from these aspects of the matter, trial Court found certain infirmities in the inquiry, such as - in the list of allegations, only four witnesses were cited while two more witnesses were examined without informing the plaintiff; the appellate and revisional orders also suffered from the same infirmities as the original order. The appellate court affirmed the decree of the trial court. It was held that since the order of punishment stated that the period of plaintiff's absence from service be considered as period without pay, absence will be deemed to have been regularised; absence on the part of the plaintiff could not be held to be a gravest act of misconduct proving incorrigibility or unfitness for police service and the punishing authority had not complied with the requirements of rules 16.2 of the Rules as held by the trial court.