STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. EX CONSTABLE JAGIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Punjab being the defendant has challenged the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below in favour of the plaintiff-respondent in this appeal preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity the Code). The only question which arises for determination in this appeal is whether in the facts and circumstances of this case the absence of plaintiff-respondent, who is a Constable in Punjab Police, on the intervening night of 11.8.1987/12.8.1987 could be regarded as gravest act of misconduct within the meaning of Rule 16(2)(i) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (for brevity the Rules).

(2.) Brief facts of the case necessary for deciding the controversy raised in the instant appeal are that the plaintiff-respondent was working as a Police Constable. He alongwith a number of other constables was deployed for guard duty at the bungalow of Sh. Ratnesh Singh Sodhi, Editor of Punjabi Daily 'Akali Patrika' Jalandhar. In addition to the plaintiff-respondent, Constable Surinder Singh belt No. 2083; Constable Baljit Singh belt No. 2014; Constable Prem Chand belt No. 367 and Constable Makhan Singh belt No. 1993 were also members of the guard and Head Constable Surjit Singh belt No. 1863 was in charge of the guard. The case of the plaintiff-respondent is that on the fateful night of 11.8.1987/12.8.1987 when he was on duty he developed a severe attack of dysentery and high fever. It is claimed that with the permission of H.C. Surjit Singh, in charge of the guard, he went to Dr. Rajinder Chhabra of Jalandhar for his treatment and remained there admitted throughout the night. He is claimed to have reported for duty on the next day. He has challenged the order of his dismissal dated 17.3.1989 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar being his Disciplinary and Appointing Authority. Plaintiff-respondent has also challenged other dated 16.5.1989 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jalandhar Range, Jalandhar dismissing his appeal and the order dated 28.8.1989 passed by Inspector General of Police, Punjab, dismissing his revision petition,

(3.) The case of the defendant-appellant is that the plaintiff-respondent absented from duty unauthorisedly which has resulted in killing of Constable Makhan Singh, Constable Prem Chand, Constable Baljit Singh and Constable Surjit Singh, who were the remaining members of the Guard on duty at the bungalow of Sh. Ratnesh Singh Sodhi. It was further asserted that the plaintiff-respondent alongwith H.C. Surjit Singh have absented unauthorisedly without seeking prior permission from the Competent Authority. It has further been asserted that had he been there then the other persons on Guard duty could not be killed. Defendant-appellant has referred to the detailed enquiry report dated 2.12.1988 conducted by DSP (City), Jalandhar which is part of the enquiry file Exhibit D-1. The Enquiry Officer after following detailed procedure and affording adequate opportunity of defending himself by the plaintiff-respondent has recorded the finding that the plaintiff-respondent was guilty of charges by remaining absent from duty without permission and in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is a grave act of violation of police discipline. Thereafter the delinquent Constable was issued show cause notice for imposition of major penalty of dismissal and forfeiting of other allowances except the subsistence allowance which stood paid during the suspension period. The delinquent Constable duly replied to the show cause notice vide reply dated 28.12.1988 which resulted in passing of the order dated 17.3.1989 dismissing the plaintiff-respondent from service. It is appropriate to mention that when the show cause notice was issued to plaintiff-respondent he was given a copy of the enquiry report also. The order of dismissal dated 17.3.1989 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar has been upheld by the Appellate Authority by dismissing the appeal of the plaintiff-respondent on 16.5.1989 and also by the Revisional Authority vide its order dated 29.8.1989.