KEHAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiff's second appeal whose suit for declaration has been dismissed by both the Courts below.

(2.) Kehar singh, plaintiff, joined the service as a Constable on 10.6.1957. He was promoted as a Head Constable on 1.5.1963 and he occupied the same post till his dismissal on 4.7.1974. On the night intervening 13.4.1964 and the 14.4.1964, Superintendent, Petrol Depot, Ambala Cantt. gave a party. Amongst others, the plaintiff also attended the dinner. It was alleged that liquor was served in the party. A complaint was made against the plaintiff and another police official posted at the patrol depot that they had taken liquor. An enquiry was conducted by the D.S.P. On the basis of the report made by the Enquiry Officer, the Superintendent of Police, Commandant, P.A.P., Jullundur, passed an order on 4.7.1974, dismissed the plaintiff from service. He filed a departmental appeal against that order before the Deputy Inspector General of Police and Inspector General of Police, but failed. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration challenging the order of dismissal inter alia pleading that the enquiry held against him contravened the Police Act and the various rules of the Punjab Police Rules. The suit was contested. The allegations made in the plant were denied. It was pleaded that the enquiry was rightly conducted according to the rules and that the order of dismissal passed by the superintendent of Police Commandant P.A.P. Jullundur, was legal. The trial Court after framing the issues and allowing the parties to lead evidence came to the conclusion that the dismissal of the plaintiff in the plaint were negatived. Consequently, the plaintiff's suit was dismissed. In appeal the learned Additional District Judge affirmed the said findings of the trial Court and thus maintained the decree dismissed the plaintiff a suit. According to the findings of the lower appellate Court, the authority of Gurdev Singh relied upon by the learned counsel, reported in 1976(2) Services Law Reporter 442, was not applicable to the fact of the present case and, therefore, the order of dismissal could not be set aside on the basis of the said authority. The contention raised on behalf of the plaintiff before the lower appellate Court that the DSP was not competent to serve the charge-sheet was also negatived on the ground that the documents on the file showed that the Superintendent of Police, Commandant, PAP Jullundur, did accord for the charge-sheet to be served on the plaintiff.

(3.) The learned counsel for the plaintiff appellant submitted that since the plaintiff was not on duty at the time when he consumed liquor, he could not be dismissed from service in view of rule 18.5(A) of the Punjab Police Rules. In support of the contention, reliance was placed on Rattan Lal v. State of Haryana,1983 SLR 243. It was also submitted that there was no evidence on the record to show that the plaintiff had taken liquir and, therefore, the finding of the enquiry officer in this behalf was vitiated being without any evidence. The next argument raised was that the charge sheet was served by the DSP who was not competent to do so Reference in this behalf was made to Onkar Singh Khosla v. Union of India,1975 2 SLR 135. A contention was also raised that the petitioner was entitled to a personal hearing, in appeal and since it was not provided to him, the order passed in appeal was liable to be set aside. Reference in this behalf was made to Siri Ram v. The State of Punjab,1967 SLR 678.