STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS Vs. SURJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present second appeal has been filed by the defendant challenging the judgment and decree dated 08.01.2000 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Patiala, whereby the appeal filed by plaintiff Surjit Singh was allowed and the judgment and decree dated 26.08.1996 passed by the subordinate court dismissing the suit was set aside.

(2.) Briefly stated, facts of the case are that plaintiff Surjit Singh was appointed as Constable on 25.09.1975. The plaintiff absented and joined duty after 132 days. Being dissatisfied with the explanation submitted by the plaintiff for his absence from duty, departmental enquiry was initiated against him for his wilful absence. The Inquiry Officer, after conducting enquiry submitted the report to the Superintendent of Police on 25.04.1984 finding the plaintiff guilty of the charges levelled against him. After conduct of proceedings, the Superintendent of Police dismissed the plaintiff from service vide order conveyed vide endst. No. 1056-59/HT/C dated 18.07.1985. The order of dismissal from services was challenged by the plaintiff by way of service appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police which was dismissed vide order dated 11.08.1987. The plaintiff thereafter approached the Director General of Police by way of revision but the same also did not find favour with the Authority and ultimately the same was dismissed on 31.03.1981. The plaintiff had challenged all these orders by way of the Civil Suit dated 27.09.1991 on ground of the same being illegal, null and void and against the principles of natural justice.

(3.) In the written statement, the defendant besides taking various preliminary objections contested the claim of the plaintiff on merit alleging that the absence of the plaintiff for 132 days was wilful as he never proceeded on sanctioned leave. The plaintiff did not file reply to the show cause notice dated 06.07.1985 to the proposed punishment of dismissal from service knowingly and the story of his and his wife's illness was concocted as an excuse to cover his act of grave misconduct of remaining wilfully absent from duty. It was further alleged that the plaintiff was a habitual absentee and had been awarded punishment of forfeiture of three years approved service on the basis of proceedings conducted in another departmental enquiry.