PUNJAB STATE Vs. SADHU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Punjab has preferred this appeal. The plaintiff-respondent was a Constable. He has filed a suit for declaration that the order of dismissal passed consequent to the departmental enquiry held against him was illegal and it was against the provisions of law, service rules and rules of natural justice and that he should be reinstated with all the benefits. The trial Court dismissed the suit. The Additional District Judge, however, decreed the suit. Against that judgment, the State has preferred the appeal.

(2.) The plaintiff-respondent joined as Constable on 29.6.1960. He was promoted as a Head Constable from 7.1.1977. He remained absent from duty from 30.4.1983 to 1.6.1983 due to which he was once reverted to the rank of Constable from 25.1.1984. He claims that he was sick from 21.6.1983 to 1.8.1983. For obtaining leave during that period he claims to have submitted certain applications to the authorities, but the authorities did not communicate him any order that might have been passed on those leave applications. In respect of his absence, he was served with a charge-sheet and was called upon to face departmental enquiry. As a sequel of that, he ultimately came to be dismissed from service. He challenged the dismissal on the ground that the enquiry was conducted without affording adequate opportunity to him and it was held contrary to the rules meant for holding departmental enquiries. His further grievance was that the copy of the impugned order was not supplied to him despite repeated requests.

(3.) In the written statement filed on behalf of the State, it was contended that the plaintiff-respondent remained absent without obtaining proper leave and, therefore, he was subjected to departmental enquiry in respect of his unauthorised absence. The other contentions raised by the plaintiff also came to be denied. It was submitted that despite repeated opportunities afforded to the plaintiff, he remained absent deliberately and the Enquiry Officer was left with no alternative but to proceed in the absence of the plaintiff. It was claimed that the enquiry was held as per the rules and procedure and the plaintiff was rightly dismissed.