STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. NACHHATTAR SINGH CONSTABLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants-appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 17.1. 1987 passed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala, by which the appeal filed by the plaintiff-respondent was allowed and the judgment and decree dated 3.3.1986 passed by the Sub Judge 1st Class, Patiala, was set aside.

(2.) The plaintiff challenged the order dated 20.4.1976 passed by defendant No. 2, Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala, alleging that he was appointed as a constable and was serving at Civil Lines, Patiala, District Patiala; and that a false challan on the basis of FIR No. 43 dated 18.2.1971 under sections 342/323 and 325/34, Indian Penal Code, was presented in the Court on the allegations that the plaintiff beat and detained one Gurdial Singh on 17.2.1971 at about 9 p.m. In that case, Sub Inspector Baldev Singh was acquitted, but the plaintiff and Head Constable Kahan Singh were held guilty under sections 325/34 Indian Penal Code. In appeal, Shri S.K. Jain, Additional Sessions Judge modified the sentence. The appeals filed by the plaintiff in the High Court and then in the Supreme Court were dismissed. On 20.4.1976, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala, dismissed the plaintiff from service. The plaintiffchallenged that order as illegal, null and void on the grounds that it was passed without hearing the plaintiff, without considering the circumstances and without applying a conscious mind by the punishing authority. The detailed grounds are mentioned in paragraph 8(a) of the plaint. A notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was served on the defendants and the suit was filed after expiry of the statutory period.

(3.) In the written statement, the defendants have admitted that the plaintiff was appointed as Constable on 9.11.1965. It is also admitted that the plaintiff was challaned and convicted in the above-mentioned criminal case and was ordered to undergo sentence. The dismissal of the appeals of the plaintiff is also admitted. But it is denied that the order is illegal, null and void. It is stated that the order, in question, has correctly and legally been passed under the Rules. The legality and validity of the notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also challenged. Legal objections were also taken up to the effect that the plaintiff had no cause of action to file the present suit; that the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of Court-fee and jurisdiction; that the suit is barred by limitation; and that the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties.