JASPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff-appellant has filed the present second appeal against the judgment of reversal dated 01.06.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, whereby appeal filed by the State of Punjab-defendant against the judgment and decree dated 06.05.2011 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar, has been accepted and his suit for declaration to the effect that orders dated 28.07.2003 passed by the Commandant 7th Battalion, PAP, Jalandhar Cantt., imposing punishment of dismissal from service and order dated 4.9.2006 passed by Deputy Inspector General of Police, Admn. PAP, Jalandhar Cantt. rejecting his appeal are illegal, arbitrary, wrong, biased and against the principles of natural justice, has been dismissed.

(2.) In brief, facts of the case are that plaintiff (appellant herein) joined the Police Department as Constable No.7/958 on 2.10.1992 in PAP Lines, Jalandhar in 7th Batallion, which is a Punjab State Government undertaking. He had proceeded on sanctioned Ex-India leave w.e.f. 23.07.2002 to 18.01.2003 and the department was duly informed about the address of his stay in UK during Ex-India Leave. Before the expiry of the aforesaid Ex-India leave, plaintiff applied for extension of leave for another five years in order to establish his business, which was received in the office of respondent No.2, but plaintiff did not receive any intimation regarding non sanctioning of his leave at the address of UK. Due to non establishment of his business in UK, he returned to India and reported for duty to defendant No.2, but was not allowed to join on the ground that his services stood dismissed vide order dated 28.07.2003 passed by the Commandant, 7th Batallion, PAP, Jalandhar Cantonment. It was further averred that the plaintiff was never informed about the aforesaid order of dismissal of service, however, he was orally told that his application for sanction of five years leave was rejected and he was dismissed from service vide aforesaid order dated 28.07.2003, which was illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. Aggrieved against the same plaintiff had preferred a departmental appeal on 17.3.2006 before the Deputy Inspector General of Polilce, Administration, PAP, Jalandhar Cantonment, which was also rejected vide order dated 4.9.2006. Plaintiff challenged the aforesaid orders by filing a suit.

(3.) Replication was also filed by the plaintiff-appellant wherein the entire contents of the plaint were reiterated and those of the written statement filed by the defendants were denied. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-