LAWS(P&H)-1996-8-248

STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. AMAN KUMAR

Decided On August 14, 1996
STATE OF PUNJAB Appellant
V/S
Aman Kumar Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Punjab has filed this appeal and it has been directed against the judgment and decree 24.3.1979 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, who affirmed the judgment and decree dated 6.6.1978 passed by the Court of Sub-Judge 3rd Class, Jalandhar, who decreed the suit of the plaintiff Aman Kumar, for declaration as prayed for.

(2.) Shri Aman Kumar was Constable of P.A.P. Jalandhar Cantt. and filed a suit for declaration to the effect that order dated 27.1.1977 passed by the Commandant, 7th B., P.A.P. Jalandhar Cantt., discharging the plaintiff from service was illegal void, unlawful and unconstitutional, arbitrary, capricious, against the provisions of law, Police Rules and rules of natural justice, and was not, therefore, binding upon him and that he continued to serve as Constable as before 27.1.1977 and was entitled to all rights, privileges and emoluments attached to that rank.

(3.) The case set up by the plaintiff is that he joined in the Punjab Police Department as Constable in the P.A.P. Jalandhar Cantt. on 5.2.1971. He worked hard, honestly and to entire satisfaction of his superior officers. On 8.1.1976 the plaintiff proceeded on ten days casual leave as his wife was on family way and had to get the leave extended because of the illness of his wife and his own illness. The plaintiff alleged that he sent an application for extension of leave to the Department, but no intimation was ever sent by the Department to him regarding sanction or rejection of the leave. The plaintiff presumed that his leave had been sanctioned. When he came to the Battalion in order to resume his duties, he was refused to join the duty and was informed that his services had been discharged from the Department with effect from 27.1.1977. The plaintiff has assailed the order of discharge on various grounds mentioned in paragraph 8 of the plaint. He also stated that before filing the suit, he served a notice under Section 80, C.P.C.