PUNJAB STATE Vs. GURDIP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff was appointed police constable in Kapurthala District. On 2. 8. 1987, he was posted at Bus Stand Phagwara, Inspector Krishan Lal, SHO, found him under the influence of liquor. He was charge sheeted followed by a departmental enquiry. He was found guilty and vide order dated 14,3. 1988 he was dismissed from service by S. P. Kapurthala. His appeals were also dismissed by the DIG Jalandhar and IGP Punjab on 5. 8. 1988 and 6. 12. 1988 respectively. Thereafter, he instituted Civil Suit No. 240 of 2. 8. 1989 thereby challenging the orders of his dismissal and those passed by the DIG and IGP in appeals. The suit was contested on behalf of the department and the parties fought the litigation on the following issues :1. Whether the impugned orders dated 2. 8. 1988 and 14. 3. 1989 passed by the defendants are illegal, null and void as alleged in para Nos. 9 and 10 of the plaint? OPP.

(2.) FEELING aggrieved, the State preferred Civil Appeal No. 27 of 16. 1. 1992/18 of 31. 1. 1992. It was heard by Additional District Judge, Kapurthala, who vide his judgment and decree dated 7. 5. 1992 dismissed the appeal. 3. It is that judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court which has been appealed against by the defendant and which requires my examination of its sustainability.

(3.) IT is vehemently argued by Mrs. Charu Tuli, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, that the Enquiry Officer vide Enquiry Report Ex. P-4 had found the delinquent official guilty of misconduct as he was found under the influence of liquor while on duty, but the Courts below have wrongly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. This argument attractive at first sight, is, in my opinion, not tenable on the sound appreciation of the provisions of Rule 16. 2 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 Vol. II which governed the service conditions of the plaintiff and which is reproduced below for ready reference :