DAYA NAND CONSTABLE Vs. HARYANA STATE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 03.01.1989, passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa whereby appeal filed against the judgment of the trial Court was dismissed and the judgment and decree of the trial Court were maintained.

(2.) For convenience sake, the reference to the parties is being made as per their status in the suit. Facts are already recapitulated in the judgments of the Courts below and are not required to be reproduced. However, the brief facts, as pleaded by the plaintiff are that he was working as a Constable since 24.01.1963. Plaintiff was facing allegations that while working as Constable, he was posted at Police Station City Sirsa. On 23.08.1981 he had proceeded on a cycle for patrol duty in 'B' Block, New Mandi, Sirsa in uniform and while on patrolling, his cycle struck against the cot of one Shri Ram Khilari S/o Shri Gori Shanker at about 2/2.30 A.M. and the Constable fell upon him; he had taken liquor. When said Ram Khilari took ill of it, the Constable grappled with him. Alarm was raised by Ram Khilari which attracted Sarv Shri Nehru Lal, Suraj Parkash, Udami Ram, Sushil Kumar and Munshi Ram to the spot. All of them took the Constable to Police Station City Sirsa and produced him before Bhoop Singh. Plaintiff was got medically examined from Civil Hospital, Sirsa and the Medical Officer opined that he was smelling alcohol but he was not under its effect. Vide Exhibit P-1 (dated 01.07.1982) he was dismissed from service on the basis of an inquiry held against him. He preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector of Police, Hissar Range, Hissar. The same was dismissed vide order dated 04.10.1982 (Exhibit P-2). Revision petition filed by him was also rejected vide order dated 01.01.1986 (Exhibit P-3). Plaintiff challenged the said orders on the ground that the same were illegal, void and not binding on him as the inquiry conducted was not in accordance with the Punjab Police Rules. No opportunity of hearing was given to him. However, the defendants resisted the suit by filing written statement and taking the plea that due opportunity of hearing was given to the plaintiff as provided under the Punjab Police Rules. Inquiry was conducted as per Rules. Impugned orders are perfectly valid and binding on the plaintiff. Preliminary objections were raised regarding jurisdiction of the Court and maintainability of the suit. Legal objections regarding limitation were also taken and defendants prayed that suit be dismissed.

(3.) On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Court of first Instance framed following issues:-