STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. SADHU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the State of Punjab-Defendant against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, dated October 21, 1988, whereby the judgment and decree of the trial Court was set aside and the suit filed by Head Constable Sadhu Singh was decreed. The trial Court had earlier dismissed the suit, During the pendency of the appeal, Sadhu Singh aforesaid died and his widow was impleaded in his place as respondent.

(2.) The facts on the basis of which suit was filed, are brief, Sadhu Singh plaintiff joined Police Force as Constable on July 2, 1959. He was promoted as Head Constable in 1968. Vide order dated March 4, 1985, he was pre-maturely retired and the present suit was filed for declaration that the order of retirement aforesaid was illegal and against the provisions of the Punjab Civil Service (Pre-Mature Retirement) Rules, 1975. The suit was filed after issuing a notice under section 80, Code of Civil Procedure. Consequential relief was also claimed from the date of his retirement. The State of Punjab put in appearance, however, failed to defend the suit by filing written statement. The trial Court eventually struck off the defence on May 15, 1986. the matter was taken to the High Court in Civil Revision. The High Court directed the Defendant-State of Punjab to file a written statement in the High Court. It was not done and one application along with written statement was filed in the trial Court. The Revision Petition was dismissed on September 3, 1986, with the result the order of the trial Court striking off the defence stood. In order to support the case of the plaintiff he entered into the witness-box and closed his evidence. The trial Court dismissed the suit on August 11, 1987. The lower Appellate Court reversed the decision.

(3.) A perusal of the record and the judgment of the lower Appellate Court, it is clear that order of retirement was passed on the basis of one adverse entry alleged to have been communicated to the petitioner of the year 1979-80. The plaintiff successfully challenged the aforesaid entry in the civil suit (Copy of judgment is Exhibit P2). The lower Appellate Court observed after examining service record of the plaintiff for a period of five years that there was no other adverse entry against him. The order of pre-mature retirement was, thus against the Service Rules as the intention of framing such rules was to weed out dead wood the case of the plaintiff did not fall in that category.