STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. INDERJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the State of Punjab against the judgment and decree dtd. 12/2/1998 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurdaspur, whereby suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff for declaration was decreed as well as against the judgment and decree dtd. 17/5/2000 passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Gurdaspur, whereby appeal filed by the State against the judgment and decree dtd. 12/2/1998, has been dismissed.

(2.) In nutshell, the facts of the case emanating from the record are that plaintiff-Inderjit Singh filed a suit for declaration to the effect that impugned order dtd. 18/2/1993 passed by defendant No.3-Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar, by virtue of which plaintiff was dismissed from service, is illegal, unlawful, unjustified and against the principles of natural justice. It was pleaded that the plaintiff was appointed as Constable on 5/8/1986 on permanent basis and he performed the duties efficiently, honestly and to the satisfaction of his superiors. He was posted on guard duty at PWD Rest House, Amritsar, but he was suddenly fell ill on 8/12/1991. His father came to see him and took with him when he was lying in unconscious condition and his father being illiterate had not made any written representation but he simply informed the other guards on duty and thus he was treated as absent from duty from 8/12/1991 to 2/4/1992. He produced the medical certificate but the same was not considered and thereafter he was dismissed from service vide order dtd. 18/2/1993. It was further pleaded he filed an appeal against the said order but the same was rejected by defendant no.2 vide order dtd. 8/8/1995 and thus the plaintiff has also challenged the said order of rejection of appeal. It is also alleged by plaintiff that show-cause proceedings are null and void because the show cause notice was not served to him nor he was given reasonable opportunity to defend his case. No personal hearing was given to him. The said order is violative of the procedure laid down under Rule 16.24 of the Punjab Police Rules. There is no specific finding of his mis-conduct. The punishment awarded is disproportionate to the gravity of mis-conduct and it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Defendants contested the suit and alleged that the suit is not maintainable; the Civil Court at Gurdaspur has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case; the suit of the plaintiff is pre-mature as revision petition has not been preferred and finally no legal and valid notice under Sec. 80 CPC has been served. On merits, it was submitted that plaintiff was enrolled as Constable on 8/5/1986 and not on 5/8/1986 as mentioned in the plaint. The defendant is habitual absentee. He has absented from the duty from 8/12/1991 to 4/4/1992. The enquiry was conducted against him and he was proceeded against ex parte.