NIRMAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present regular second appeal, the challenge is to the judgment and decree dtd. 10/2/2014 of the Lower Appellate Court by which, the appeal filed by the respondents-State challenging the judgment and decree of the trial Court dtd. 13/11/2010 was allowed and the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff was dismissed.

(2.) Appellant-plaintiff joined Indian Army and served the country from 1962 to 1971. Thereafter, the appellant-plaintiff resigned from the Indian Army and joined police force as Constable in the Punjab Police in the year 1971 and he remained in service for 33 years and retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31/10/2004. Two days prior to his retirement i.e on 29/10/2004, a notice was issued to him that there was some discrepancy in his age hence, the said issue needed to be enquired into to ascertain his correct date of birth and consequent right age of superannuation. After the retirement of the appellant-plaintiff, departmental proceedings were initiated against him under Rule 16.24 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 and the enquiry officer gave a finding that the date of birth of the appellant-plaintiff was proved to be 25/3/1946 instead of 15/10/1946 and keeping in view the said finding in the departmental proceedings, the respondent-department issued an order dtd. 19/5/2005 by which, the salary which the appellant-plaintiff was paid for serving the department from 1/4/2004 till 31/10/2004 amounting to Rs.1,24,000.00 was ordered to be recovered from him and penalty for stoppage of two annual increments which the appellant-plaintiff had already drawn, was also imposed.

(3.) The said punishment was challenged by the appellant-plaintiff before the trial Court wherein, it was agitated that once the appellantplaintiff had already worked with the respondent-department up to 31/10/2004 and the salary has been paid for the period for which he had actually discharged the duty, the said salary could not have been recovered from the appellant-plaintiff and punishment of stoppage of two annual increments, which the appellant-plaintiff had already drawn, is not as per the punishment envisaged under the rules hence, imposition of said punishment after the retirement of the appellant-plaintiff was beyond the jurisdiction of the respondent-department. It was further contended by the plaintiff that his date of birth could not have been changed after the retirement.