STATE OF HARYANA Vs. CONST. ASHWANI KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS are in second appeal against the judgment of reversal dated 12.12.2012 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra whereby the judgment and decree dated 4.10.2012 passed by the learned trial court dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs was set aside, allowing the appeal filed by the plaintiff - respondent. Facts first.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case, as recorded by the learned lower appellate court in para 2 and 3 of the impugned judgment, are that the plaintiff -respondent was initially enlisted as Constable in Haryana Police, Tele -Communication Wing on 29.10.2003. It was his further pleaded case that plaintiff had been discharging his duties honestly and sincerely to the entire satisfaction of his superiors. However, a departmental enquiry was conducted against the plaintiff for his alleged misbehaviour with three lady Constables, while posted on deputation in CID Haryana at Panchkula. On that very account, a criminal case was also registered at police station Sadar Thanesar, vide FIR No. 19 dated 10.1.2005 alleging that the plaintiff misbehaved with three lady Constables on 9.1.2005 at Pipali Bus Stand. Plaintiff wrote to the Superintendent of Police, Tele - Communication Wing, Haryana, for changing the Enquiry Officer on the ground that he was having some inter se dispute of seniority with him. It was further alleged that since the Enquiry Officer was biased against the plaintiff, enquiry was not conducted in accordance with law. Neither the relevant documents were supplied to the plaintiff nor adequate opportunities were granted to him to cross -examine the witnesses whereas the Enquiry Officer himself cross -examined the witnesses. On the basis of the enquiry, show cause notice was issued to the plaintiff proposing punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with permanent effect. Plaintiff submitted his reply to the show cause notice and punishment of Censure was awarded to him vide order dated 22.5.2006.

(3.) HAVING been left with no other option, plaintiff filed the present suit. After having been served in the suit, defendants appeared and filed their written statement taking preliminary objections that suit was not maintainable, plaintiff has no locus standi to institute the suit and the suit was bad for misjoinder and non - joinder of the necessary parties. On merits, punishment order was sought to be defended alleging that the competent authority was fully empowered to pass the punishment order under Rule 16.28 of the Punjab Police Rules. Acquittal of the plaintiff in criminal case was admitted, but it was contended that departmental proceedings could run simultaneously with criminal proceedings and the standard of proof in criminal proceedings was completely different from the standard of proof that was required to be in the departmental proceedings.