STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. SUKHWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sukhwant Singh, respondent, was recruited as a Constable on 10.4.1975. He passed his lower course examination on 31.3.1980 and he was promoted as Head Constable in April, 1981. He was served with a show cause notice proposing to dismiss him from service and after obtaining his reply he was reverted to the post of Constable on 30.3.1987. His appeal to the D.I.G. Railway Police, Patiala was dismissed. His further appeal to I.G. punjab also failed. He, therefore, instituted civil suit No. 139 on 12.4.1988 for a decree of declaration to the effect that the order initiating departmental enquiry, charge-sheet, show cause notice, order of reversion and all other subsequent orders were illegal, null, void, unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice and mandatory provisions of Punjab Police Rules and Punjab Civil Service Rules. After contest the suit was decreed by the Addl. Senior Sub Judge, Patiala, vide his judgment and decree dated 17.1.1990. The State then filed civil appeal No. 344 on 12.4.1990 which was heard and dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala vide his judgment and decree dated 5.6.1991. It is that judgment and decree which has been challenged for my examination of its sustainability.

(2.) I have seen the pleadings in the suit, evidence adduced by the parties in the suit and the judgments of both the Court below.

(3.) Mr. Boparai, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab has vehemently argued that the plaintiff was duly charge-sheeted and in a regular Departmental enquiry held against him, charges levelled against him had been established. The report of the Inquiring Officer was considered by the Disciplinary Authority and after full application of mind, he came to the conclusion that punishment of reduction in rank should be awarded to the plaintiff and, therefore, a show cause notice along with the reasons for his having come to the said conclusion were supplied to the plaintiff. His representation was considered and declined and then he was punished. Therefore, the order of punishment and other steps taken during the course of enquiry were perfectly legal and valid.