STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. Vs. DARSHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants-State of Punjab and others have filed the instant second appeal after Respondent-Plaintiff having been non-suited by the trial Court, remained successful in the lower appellate court.

(2.) Darshan Singh Respondent-Plaintiff was appointed as Home Guard. The Plaintiff alleged that his service conditions are governed by Article 309 of the Constitution of India and the relevant Civil Services Rules of the State of Punjab. The Plaintiff alleged that he proceeded on leave on medical ground from 10.05.2000 to 09.02.2001. However, Plaintiff was discharged from Government service. On his request for reinstatement, he was reinstated vide order dated 04.09.2001. Accordingly, Plaintiff rejoined his duties vide DDR No. 7 dated 11.02.2002. However, pursuant to letter dated 25.02.2002 of Defendant No. 3, Defendant No. 4 again relieved the Plaintiff from his duties. The Plaintiff has challenged the same, alleging that no show cause notice was issued to him before relieving him. Various other grounds were also pleaded. The Plaintiff also sought mandatory injunction directing the Defendants to rein duct the Plaintiff as Home Guard.

(3.) Defendants broadly controverted the plaint allegations and inter alia pleaded that the Plaintiff was appointed as volunteer in Punjab Home Guard and is not governed by Article 309 of the Constitution of India or by Civil Service Rules. He is governed by the East Punjab Volunteers Corps Act, 1947 (in short the Act). It was alleged that Plaintiff had proceeded on leave from 05.05.2000 to 09.05.2000 and thereafter remained absent from duty from 10.05.2000 to 09.02.2001. According to the Act and Government instructions, Home Guard remaining absent for six days continuously cannot be recalled to duty. Plaintiff was not discharged but was called off from duty. The Plaintiff obtained order of recall to duty by misrepresentation and, therefore, the said order was revoked vide order dated 25.02.2002 and the Plaintiff was called off from duty. Grounds pleaded by the Plaintiff, challenging the impugned order were controverted. Various other pleas were also raised.