PUNJAB STATE Vs. EX. CONSTABLE GULZAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed by the State of Punjab which is aggrieved against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below which had set aside the dismissal order of the plaintiff and held him entitled to be reinstated in service along with arrears of pay and seniority from the date of his dismissal till the actual date of reinstatement in service.

(2.) The suit filed by the plaintiff Ex. Constable Gulzar Singh sought to challenge the order dated 14.7.2003 whereby he was dismissed from service by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur and the subsequent order dated 20.12.2003 whereby his appeal was rejected by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ferozepur Range, Ferozepur. The case of the plaintiff was that he was a permanent regular member of the Police and recruited in the Police Department on 8.8.1979 and having a long length of service. It is alleged that on 18.10.2001 one Harbhajan Singh ASI held a Naka near Bikaneri Chungi, Ferozepur and during the said Nakabandi, the plaintiff was apprehended on the basis of suspicion when he was coming on his scooter and on search 19 Kgs. of poppy husk was recovered from him lying on the floor of the scooter between the feet of the plaintiff and accordingly FIR No.85 dated 18.10.2011 under Sections 15/61/85 of the N.D.P.S.Act was registered at Police Station, Ferozepur City. It was accordingly alleged that on completion of departmental enquiry, the plaintiff was found guilty and awarded punishment of dismissal from service. On the same day another order was passed against the plaintiff whereby his 5 annual increments were forfeited with permanent effect and the period of absence was also treated as no work no pay by way of punishment. Both the orders being interconnected were passed on the basis of the registration of the above said case. The plaintiff filed two appeals before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ferozepur Range, Ferozepur and the Appellate Authority who dismissed the appeals vide orders dated 20.12.2003 and 30.12.2003 respectively. The said orders were accordingly challenged on the ground that the plaintiff was wrongly made the victim of double jeopardy by passing two separate orders for one lapse and they were interconnected with each other and the authority should have waited for the decision of the criminal Court and thereafter, the plaintiff should have been punished. No prior sanction from the District Magistrate was obtained before holding the enquiry. The proper procedure had not been followed by the punishing authority while holding the departmental enquiry and no prior intimation was given with regard to screening of back service record of the plaintiff. The additional ground was taken that case was still to be tried by the criminal Court and since no report of Chemical Examiner had been called and the long length of service of the plaintiff which was 24/25 years had not been taken into consideration and the absence of the plaintiff was beyond his control as he remained in judicial custody and did not amount to intentional absence and the suspension period could not be treated as absence period. Various other grounds were also taken regarding supply of the copies of various documents and witnesses were examined without administering oath. Accordingly, it is prayed that said orders be declared null and void and the consequential relief of reinstatement of the plaintiff in service along with arrears of pay, seniority etc. be given along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

(3.) The written statement filed by the defendants and took the plea that the departmental remedies had not been exhausted and since the plaintiff was involved in a serious case under the N.D.P.S. Act, therefore, he was liable to be dismissed from service being a member of a disciplined force. The allegations of non following the proper procedure was denied and it was pleaded that a proper procedure had been followed and show cause notice and notice dated 7.12.2002 and 3.1.2003 respectively had been served upon the plaintiff. After taking into consideration the pleadings, ,the following issues were framed by the trial Court:-