RAJESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has arisen out of the judgment 6.11.2009, vide which the judgment dated 19.12.2006, was reversed and the suit of the appellant/plaintiff (herein referred as the appellant) was dismissed. The appellant, while working as constable, was posted on duty at the residence of Cabinet Minister Sh. Ranjit Singh Behrampura on 30.11.2011, at 1.40 p.m., a quarrel had taken place between the appellant and his co -employee, Constable Wazir Singh. SI Amarjit Singh inquired into the matter and submitted an internal report. Then, after holding regular inquiry, the appellant was dismissed by the Commandant i.e. respondent No. 2, vide order dated 17.4.2002. The appellant in his plaint urged that the inquiry, as held by the Inquiry Officer, was in violation of the principles of natural justice and the provisions of Rule 16.24 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (for brevity 'the Rules') in as much as none of the statements of the prosecution witnesses were recorded in his presence. He was not provided an opportunity to defend himself by providing him the help of co -employee. The Inquiry Officer arbitrarily held the appellant guilty of the charges levelled against him. The reply submitted by him to the show cause notice was not considered and he was dismissed without affording any personal hearing. It was further urged that no legal or valid summary of allegations or list of witnesses and charge sheet were served upon him nor he was supplied copies of the relevant documents connecting the charge sheet. The allegations as levelled upon him are false. No personal hearing was given to him by the punishing authority. Thus, he has challenged the orders dated 17.4.2002, 16.5.2003 and revisional order dated 22.12.2003.

(2.) UPON notice, the defendants appeared and filed the written statement, wherein they took some preliminary objections. On merits, it was, inter -alia, contended that the plaintiff was enrolled as Constable on 8.9.1993. He never performed his duties to the satisfaction of his superiors. He was habitual absentee and was punished so many times. The defendants also gave details of the period of his absence and other charges. During the inquiry, the appellant was found guilty of gross misconduct. Then, after giving him due opportunity of being heard, he was dismissed from service. While denying the violation of principles of natural justice during the inquiry, it was submitted that due procedure was followed and proper opportunity of being heard was given to him. However, while feeling that he would not prove to be a good police official, he was dismissed from service.

(3.) Both the parties led evidence in support of their case. After hearing both the parties, the trial court decreed the suit of the appellant, but the first appellate court reversed the judgment and dismissed the suit of the appellant. Hence the present appeal.