STATE OF HARYANA Vs. MOHINDER PARTAP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Haryana has filed the present appeal and it has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 11.6.1984 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, who affirmed the judgment and decree dated 28.2.1983 passed by the Sub Judge Ist, Class, Ambala City who decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent Mohinder Partap for declaration that the order of dismissal dated 30.6.1978 passed by the Assistant Inspector General/Government Railway Police, Haryana was unconstitutional, ab-initio void and bad in the eyes of law and declaration was also given in favour of the plaintiff-respondent to the effect that he would be treated into service and would be entitled to pay and allowances from the date of his dismissal.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that Mohinder Partap filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the order of dismissal dated 30.6.1978 passed by the Assistant Inspector General, Government Railway Police, Haryana is unconstitutional, ab-initio void and bad in the eyes of law and for setting aside the same. The plaintiff also sought declaration to the effect that he was entitled to the pay and allowances from the date of his dismissal and the case set up by the plaintiff was that he was enrolled in the police department on 11.5.1972. He passed the Courses namely, Finger Print Course from Finger Print Bureau, Rohtak and Weapon Course from Jahan Khelan in the year 1972. He worked at different stations. The allegations against him are that on 11.4.1972, while Ishwar Singh, Chief Drill Inspector, GRP Lines, Ambala was executing the punishment of drill to the plaintiff previously awarded to him by the SDO/GRP, Hissar, the plaintiff refused to undergo the punishment and told the Drill Inspector in an undisciplined tone that he would not do so and he may be awarded other punishment. These allegations have been levelled due to enmity with the AIR/GRP, Haryana, who wanted that the plaintiff should do his domestic work but he refused to do the same; hence nursed AIR(a) grouse and tried to inflict punishment on one excuse or the other. According to the plaintiff these allegations are fabricated. It has also been alleged against the plaintiff that on 22.3.1978 he was found slack on platform duty on the basis of which fifteen days' drill was awarded to him. On the 7th day of the drill, the plaintiff fell ill due to the harshness of the punishment. He was incapacitated and there was chances of his collapse. The plaintiff requested Ishwar Singh that due to illness he was unable to do drill. He requested with folded hands to convey the authorities but Shri Ishwar Singh was bent upon to award punishment the plaintiff under the influence of his superiors, who wanted to take revenge against the plaintiff. False allegations were concocted against the plaintiff and a wrong entry was made in the roznamcha that the plaintiff refused to obey the commands of the drill Inspector in an undisciplined manner. The plaintiff never behaved in an undisciplined manner. The enquiry which was conducted is assailed as being not according to rules. His defence was not taken into consideration. Further it was alleged against the plaintiff that he left the gun. In fact, the plaintiff deposited the gun in the armoury. The plaintiff alleged that he is a poor constable; whereas the high-ups were interested to take revenge against him. The punishment which has been awarded to him is out of all proportions and it smacks of mala fide on the part of the defendant. The plaintiff was not given opportunity of show cause against such a heavy punishment of dismissal. The appeal of the plaintiff was illegally dismissed by AIR/GRP, Haryana vide orders dated 29.9.1978. The plaintiff served a notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure before filing the present suit.

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendant-State. The defendant denied the allegations of the plaintiff that the enquiry was conducted against the plaintiff due to enmity. The plaintiff was never asked to do the domestic work nor there was any occasion. It was pleaded that the allegations of indiscipline, disobedience, and rude behaviour towards the Senior Officers were found to be true in the departmental enquiry and the plaintiff was held guilty. Fifteen days' drill was not wrongly awarded to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was found slack in the performance of his duties on the platform on 22.3.1978. The other material allegations levelled by the plaintiff were also denied, and it was pleaded that the enquiry conducted against the plaintiff was in accordance with the rules. The plaintiff was asked to file the list of witnesses but he gave a written application dated 19.5.1978 that he did not lead any defence. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff abandoned his service rifle and went away without depositing it in the armoury and it was subsequently deposited by HC Ishwar Singh. The defendant admitted that the plaintiff gave notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure but ultimately prayed for the dismissal of the suit.