MALKIAT SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having remained unsuccessful on the point of limitation before the courts below, plaintiff-appellant knocked at the door of this Court by filing the present appeal praying for acceptance of the appeal and setting aside the judgments and decrees passed by them.

(2.) Briefly the facts required to be noticed for the disposal of this appeal are that a suit for declaration was filed by the plaintiff-appellant to the effect that order dated 11.7.1998 passed by Superintendent of Police, Panchkula by virtue of which the punishment of stoppage of four increment with cumulative effect have been imposed and also the order passed by Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ambala Range, Ambala Cantt, by virtue of which appeal of the plaintiff has been rejected, are illegal and are also against the principles of natural justice. Plaintiff-appellant has also prayed that he is entitled to all consequential benefits under Order 7, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code.

(3.) The facts required to be noticed for the disposal of this appeal are that plaintiff-appellant had joined services in the police department as a constable on 14.11.1975 and was promoted as Head Constable in the year 1986 and the appellant had been performing his duties to the best of his ability. But to his utter surprise, he was served with the summary of allegations regarding the incident of 27.1.1997. It has been further pleaded by the plaintiff that inquiry was conducted against the plaintiff and he was issued a show cause notice dated 25.5.1998 proposing the punishment of stoppage of five future increments with cumulative effect. Plaintiff-appellant filed a reply to the show cause notice, but without considering his reply, punishment of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect was imposed. Appellant filed an appeal against the order, but the same was rejected. It has been further pointed out that impugned orders were passed without affording any reasonable opportunity and the impugned orders are based on no legal evidence. It has been further pleaded that plaintiff-appellant was compulsorily retired from service vide letter dated 7.3.2002 wherein impugned orders were also referred.