STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS Vs. PIARA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent was employed as a Constable in Punjab Police. He joined service in the year 1957. Vide order dated 4.12.1979, he was dismissed from service on the allegation that on 5.11.1978, while on duty, he was found drunk and when Inspector Krishan Kumar prepared a docket for his medical examination, he slipped away and absented himself from duty. Order of dismissal was upheld in appeal and revision. He filed a suit for declaring order or dismissal from service to be void on the ground that enquiry was not in accordance with Rule 16.25 of the Punjab Police Rules and the order of punishment was not in accordance with Rule 16.22 as the length of service of the plaintiff was not considered before the order was passed and opportunity for personal hearing was not given.

(2.) The suit was contested.

(3.) The trial court dismissed the suit. It was held that reasonable opportunity was given to the plaintiff in the course of enquiry. As regards his contention that he was not allowed to examine defence witnesses. It was held that he examined one defence witness and was directed to produce his second witness on 22.1.1979 but plaintiff gave in writing that he did not want to examine the said second witness. Subsequently, the word 'not' was obliterated from the order dated 22.1.1979 which was at Page 6 of the enquiry file Ex. P.7. As regards the contention that length of service was not taken into account and personal hearing was not given, it was observed that the plaintiff was called for personal hearing as reflected in the impugned order and his reply was duly considered. Contention that the misconduct did not fall in the definition of 'gravest acts' of misconduct on which order of dismissal could be passed under Rule 16.2, it was held that the contention had no merit.