STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. MUKHTIAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is Defendants second appeal against whom suit for declaration has been decreed by both the Courts below.

(2.) THE Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the order of his removal from service dated 6th January, 1982, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bhatinda, was null and void. It was alleged that he was appointed as a Peon in the office of the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Talwandi Sabo. The impugned order of his removal from service issued on 6th January, 1982 by the Deputy Commissioner was illegal on the ground that while under the relevant rules known as Punjab State Class IV Service Rules, 1963, as amended in 1972, it was only the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Talwandi Sabo, who was the disciplinary authority and the only competent person who could have initiated any action against him. The impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner is, therefore, totally bad in law and that the enquiry which was conducted into the allegations levelled against him was not held in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. The suit was contested on behalf of the State of Punjab inter -alia on the grounds that the entire proceedings, i.e. holding the enquiry etc. were gone through perfectly in accordance with law and that no fault could be found therewith. According to the written statement, the Deputy Commissioner, was the appointing authority of the Plaintiff and was, therefore, competent to pass the termination orders. The trial Court found that the Deputy Commissioner could not have initiated any action against the Plaintiff and therefore, the entire proceedings which ensued therefrom (the enquiry) and including the impugned order are to be taken as wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. In view of that finding the Plaintiff's suit was decreed. In appeal the learned. Additional District Judge affirmed the said findings of the trial Court and thus maintained the decree passed in favour of the Plaintiff. Dissatisfied with the same the State of Punjab has filed this second appeal in this Court, whereas cross -objections have been filed on behalf of the Plaintiff in which it has been prayed that the finding of the courts below treating the period of absence as leave of the kind due be set aside.

(3.) ON the other hand learned Counsel for the Plaintiff -Respondent contended that, - -vide letter Exhibit P -6, dated September', 1972, in respect of non -gazetted establishment the Government had declared the Sub Divisional Officers (Civil) in the State of Punjab as head of office under. Rule 2.26 of Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume I, Part I, within their respective Sub -Divisions and there -fort, in view of that letter only the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) was competent to initiate the enquiry proceedings, if any, against the Plaintiff. The initiation of the enquiry by the Deputy Commissioner, according to the learned Counsel, though he was the appointing authority, was illegal and without jurisdiction. According to the learned Counsel it was the competent authority as contemplated under Rule 2.14 of the Punjab C.S.R. Volume I, Part I (hereinafter called 'the Rules'), who could initiate any proceedings against the Plaintiff. In support of his contention he referred to Baldev Singh v. The Secretary to Government Punjab Rehabilitation Department and Ors., 1969 S.L.R. 689 and Pothula Suba Rao v. The Post Master General Andhra Circle Hyderabad and Anr., 1980 (3) S.L.R. 183.