PUNJAB STATE Vs. HARDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State of Punjab has filed the present R. S. A. and it has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 8. 2. 1994 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Amritsar, who affirmed the judgment and decree dated 4. 6. 1993 passed by the Court of Sub Judge Ist Class, Amritsar, vide which the suit of the plaintiff-respondent Hardev Singh for declaration was decreed.

(2.) THE case set up by the plaintiff in the trial Court was that the office orders dated 12. 6. 1987, No. 19903oa/b, passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar, (for short the S. S. P.)after dispensing with the regular departmental inquiry while invoking the powers under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India, dismissing the plaintiff from service with effect from 12. 6. 1987 and the subsequent orders dated 20. 8. 1987 and 31. 10. 1989 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jalandhar, Range, Jalandhar (for the 'the D. I. G. ') and the Inspector General of Police, Punjab, (for short 'the I. G. '), respectively confirming the above said order of dismissal of the plaintiff from service, while rejecting the appeal and the revision respectively, preferred by the plaintiff against his dismissal were wrong, illegal, mala fide, cryptic capricious, without jurisdiction, non-speaking and had been passed with a prejudiced mind and in violation of the principles of the Constitution of India, Punjab Police Rules and the principles of natural justice denying the plaintiff and opportunity to defend his case, were thus void, inoperative against the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff continued to be Constable in the Punjab Police, District Amritsar as before 12. 6. 1987 and was entitled to all the pay, powers and privileges attached with the post of Constable. The plaintiff alleges that after having obtained the necessary qualifications he joined the Police Department on 4. 11. 1971 as Constable and right from the first day of his enrolment as Constable he has been working with extreme honesty and devotion in the interest of the Police Force without giving any cause of complaint to his superiors. It was to the sheer misfortune of the plaintiff that he was suddenly dismissed from service vide order dated 12. 6. 1987 passed by the S. S. P. Amritsar. Before passing the order of dismissal he was never charge sheeted, nor any show cause notice was given to him and nor any departmental in quiry was held. The order was passed by the S. S. P. under the provisions of the Punjab Police Rule 16. 1 read with Section 7 of the Police Act, 1861, and Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. It was given out in the order itself that a regular departmental inquiry was being dispensed with as in the opinion of the punishing authority, i. e. , the S. S. P. it was not practicable to hold the departmental inquiry. The allegations which led to the passing of the said order were that it was reported that the plaintiff was mixing-up with the extremists and was giving them all help by leaking out the information, classified in nature. It was further given in the order itself that after going through the facts and circumstances of the case, the S. S. P. was satisfied that a regular departmental inquiry, as envisaged under the Punjab Police Rules, 16. 24 was not reasonably practicable because no witness was likely to depose against the plaintiff due to the fear of injury to the witness's life. The S. S. P. further went on to record that owing to the abovesaid facts, he was of the opinion that the plaintiff's retention in service was undesirable keeping in view the maintenance of the law and order. Accordingly, the plaintiff was being dismissed from service with immediate effect vide office order dated 12. 6. 1987. The plaintiff preferred an appeal against the said order, which was dismissed by the D. I. G. vide order 20. 8. 1987. The revision filed by the plaintiff was also dismissed by the I. G. vide order dated 31. 10. 1989. The plaintiff alleges that the impugned orders are illegal, null and void and are not binding upon his rights. He served a notice under Section 80 of the C. P. C. before filing the suit, but to no effect.

(3.) THE plaintiff filed replication to the written statement in which he reiterated his allegations made in the plaint, by denying those of the written statement.