RAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This regular second appeal is against the judgment of reversal passed by the first appellate Court vide which the impugned order of punishment dated 5.1.1995 and the order passed by the appellate authority dated 26.7.1995 were set aside by the trial Court, however, the same have been upheld by the first appellate Court by setting aside the order of the trial Court. 2. Brief facts of this case are that the plaintiff (appellant herein) joined the Punjab Police as Constable in Faridkot District on 22.12.1979. He was promoted as Head Constable and then Assistant Sub Inspector in October 2002. The plaintiff was transferred as MHC in the Police Station City Moga on 23.12.1989 where he remained posted upto 23.1.1990. It is his case that he was not given full charge by his predecessor MHC Shamsher Singh and to that effect he reported to the In-charge of Police Station. Later on a departmental inquiry against him, against Head Constables Harmail Singh No.446 and Puran Chand No.978 was initiated.

(2.) The Inquiry Officer concluded the alleged inquiry and submitted his inquiry report on 17.8.1992. During inquiry proceedings the plaintiff filed the reply to the notice. On the basis of the inquiry report, SSP, Faridkot passed the impugned order vide which punishment of one year approved service of the plaintiff was forfeited with cumulative effect. This order was affirmed in appeal by DIG Ferozepur Range vide order dated 26.7.1995. It is contended that the plaintiff filed second appeal/mercy petition on 21.9.1995 which was also dismissed on 23.6.2000. Against this order, the plaintiff once again filed a revision before the State Government which is stated to have been dismissed on 24.8.2001. As the petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the State of Punjab, the appellant approached the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridkot by way of suit for declaration. So the plaintiff approached the Civil Court with the prayer that the impugned order vide which one year service of the plaintiff was forfeited with cumulative effect was arbitrary, illegal, void, cryptic, non-speaking, passed due to non-application of mind and against the principles of natural justice and Punjab Police Rules was liable to be set aside.

(3.) The suit of the plaintiff was contested by the respondents by filing written statement and taking up various grounds including the ground that the suit of the plaintiff was badly barred by limitation and is liable to be dismissed on this score alone. Learned trial Court framed following issues in this case: