DHARAM SINGH EX-CONSTABLE Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This regular second appeal is against the concurrent decisions of the two Courts below whereby suit filed by the plaintiff -appellant Dharam Singh stands dismissed.

(2.) On the night intervening 19th and 20th January 1983, Dharam Singh plaintiff was posted on guard -duty as member of guard party at the residence of Shri A.P. Pandey, Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar. On January 20, 1983, at about 8.05 a.m. guard -duty was checked by Sh. Bachan Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police. It was observed that rifle allotted to Dharam Singh plaintiff had been stolen. The plaintiff was posted on Sentry duty from 10.00 p.m. to 2.00 a.m. Instead of performing his duty carefully, he went to the garage and slept there. Criminal case Under Sec. 380 of the Indian Penal Code was registered vide FIR No. 50. In this manner Dharam Singh was negligent in performing his duty. After regular enquiry was held against him he was dismissed from service. The order of punishment was affirmed on appeal/revision by the higher authorities that he challenged the aforesaid orders in the present suit for a declaration that these were illegal. The suit was contested and different issues were framed. Ultimately all the Courts held that the order of dismissal was in accordance with law.

(3.) Shri Hari Singh Mann, Advocate during arguments, did not point out any illegality or irregularity of procedure in the conduct of the enquiry conducted against the petitioner. He did not repeat the arguments which were repelled in the Courts below. He contended that in the facts and circumstances of the present case when at the instance of Dharam Singh himself subsequently the rifle stolen was recovered, it was not a fit case for his removal from service and this Court should interfere in the matter of punishment. In support of this contention reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Workmen of Bharat Fritz Werner (P) Ltd. v/s. Bharat Fritz Werner (P) Ltd., 1990(2) SLR 20, while referring to the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution it was held that the High Court was competent to look into the quantum of punishment awarded to the workman. the other decision relied is of this Court in R.K. Gupta, Executive Engineer v/s. Punjab State Electricity Board, 1991(3) RSJ 318, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to meet ends of justice the punishment of reduction in rank was converted into one that of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. It is not necessary to refer to the facts of the cases in detail. The ratio of the decisions aforesaid cannot be applied in a civil suit. The High Court enjoys vast powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. Under the Industrial Disputes Act the Labour Court also enjoys powers to pass appropriate orders of punishment with respect to the workman and hence in such like matters also when matters are taken to the High Court the same could interfere in the matter of punishment. Such powers cannot be exercised by the Subordinate Courts in civil suits. Only declarations could be issued if orders of punishment are found to be illegal or void contravening provisions of any statute Rules or the constitution. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner, therefore in this respect is repelled.