LAWS(P&H)-2024-5-45

SURINDER PAL Vs. HARYANA STATE

Decided On May 15, 2024
SURINDER PAL Appellant
V/S
HARYANA STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having failed before the learned Courts below by recording concurrent findings, the plaintiff/appellant has preferred instant regular second appeal, impugning the judgments and decrees dtd. 20/3/1998 and 16/11/1999 passed by the trial Court and Lower Appellate Court. Parties to the lis hereinafter shall be referred to by their original position in the suit.

(2.) The plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for declaration to the effect that order of dismissal dtd. 13/12/1991, passed by the Superintendent of Police, Hisar and appellate order dtd. 17/10/1992, passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Hisar Range, Hisar, and revisional order dtd. 21/2/1993, passed by the Director General of Police, Haryana, are bad in law and are liable to be set-aside. The plaintiff/appellant had joined as Constable in the office of Superintendent of Police, Hisar and remained absent from 25/12/1989 to 28/12/1989 and then from 22/1/1990 to 27/3/1991, and was proceeded departmentally and after holding departmental enquiry, he was dismissed from service vide order dtd. 13/12/1991, passed by the Superintendent of Police, Hisar. Aggrieved against the said order, he preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority i.e. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Hisar Range, Hisar, which was considered and rejected by the said authority on 17/10/1992 and thereafter, against these orders, he preferred a revision before the Director General of Police, Haryana, which was also rejected vide order dtd. 21/2/1993. The said orders were challenged by the plaintiff/appellant in the suit which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dtd. 20/3/1998, passed by the trial Court, by recording the following findings:-

(3.) Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dtd. 20/3/1998, the plaintiff/appellant preferred an appeal along with an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, for leading additional evidence/documents. The said application was duly considered by the learned Lower Appellate Court, by recording the following findings:-