STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. PARKASH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Regular Second Appeal was admitted to be heard by a Division Bench in view of the argument raised, but doubted by, the admitting Judge that it was incumbent on the Punishing Authority under Rule 16. 24 of the Punjab Police, Rules, 1934 (hereinafter called the 'rules') to affored an opportunity to a delinquent police official of a personal hearing and the failure to do so would invalidate the punishment awarded.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the appeal are stated hereunder : Parkash Chand plaintiff/respondent, who was working as a Constable in the Punjab Armed Police, absented himself from duty for the period July 20, 1977 to September 16, 1977. On account of the absence, an enquiry was held under the provisions of the Rules and vide order dated 6th April, 1978, the respondent was dismissed from service. The appeal taken to the higher authorities having failed, the present suit was filed challenging the order dated 6th April, 1978. The challenge was made on the ground that no valid enquiry had been held against the respondent, that no reasonable opportunity had been given to him to cross-examine the witnesses and that the punishment imposed was violative of the safeguards provided under the Rules and under Article 311 of Constitution of India while controverting the averments made in the plaint, the State of Punjab in its reply stated that the procedure provided under the Rules for conducting an enquiry had been complied with and as such, the dismissal of the respondent was perfectly in order.

(3.) ON the basis of the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues :1. Whether the impugned order dated April 16, 1978 dismissing the plaintiff from employment in service of the defendant is void, without jurisdiction, mala fide etc. as alleged in para 6 of the plaint; if so, its effect ? OPP 2. Whether the notice under Section 80 C. P. C. is invalid ? OPD 3. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction ? OPD