(1.) This is defendants' second appeal directed against judgment and decree dated 3.4.1995 of the learned Additional District Judge whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree of the trial Court has been set aside and consequently, suit of the plaintiff has been decreed.
(2.) Plaintiff joined as Constable in the Police Department on 15.10.1973. He was confirmed as such 10.10.1976. Vide order dated 11.5.1984, his services were terminated. Plaintiff filed an appeal to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Patiala Range, Patiala, but remained unsuccessful. Revision preferred by him against the said order too came to be dismissed by the Inspector General of Police. Plaintiff further filed a petition to the Director General of Police, Punjab, but it also met the same fate. After having lost the battle upto the level of Director General of Police, Punjab, plaintiff filed civil suit alleging that orders passed by the defendants removing him from service are illegal and void. He alleged that he was unfit to perform his duties for the period from 5.5.1981 to 24.9.1982 due to his mental disorder. He alleged that the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with law by the Enquiry Officer. In regard to the punishment, he alleged that punishment awarded to him was disproportionate to the charge proved against him. On notice of the suit, defendants did not file written statement though they availed a number of opportunities for the purpose. Their defence was struck off. Trial Court on going through the record of the enquiry, came to the conclusion that the enquiry had been held in accordance with law and finding no illegality in the same, dismissed the suit. In appeal by the plaintiff, learned Additional District Judge relying upon Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules quashed the judgment of the trial Court and decreed the suit, thereby setting aside the order dated 11.5.1984 dismissing the plaintiff from service. The order of dismissal was set aside primarily on the ground that in the order of dismissal the Punishing Authority was not alive to the requirement of Rule 16.2 of the Rules and it failed to record any finding that the act of the plaintiff amounted to gravest act of misconduct which required his dismissal from service.
(3.) In this second appeal, it has been contended by Mr. S.K. Bhanot, DAG, Punjab, counsel for appellants that the learned Additional District Judge has not appreciated that the Civil Court is not to sit as a Court of Appeal over the satisfaction of the Punishing Authority. He contended that once the Punishing Authority on the basis of the enquiry report came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was guilty of gross violation of discipline, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to substitute its finding with that of the Punishing Authority. At the hearing of the appeal, no representation has been made on behalf of the plaintiff.