PARVEEN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal arises out of a suit filed jointly by 43 plaintiffs before the Civil Court at Chandigarh in Civil Suit No.168 of 30.11.2000. The question of discrimination arose in the suit between the plaintiffs and other similarly situated police officials when for the same incident of participating in the strike resorted to by policemen in Haryana in 1991, different authorities in different ranges and districts had taken different views and expressed divergent opinions in the matter of imposing punishments to the delinquent employees all of whom were placed in the same circumstances vis-a-vis the State-wide strike.

(2.) The history of the case is a chequered one and is not necessary to be traversed again since the same has been dealt with in detail by the trial court and the first appellate court. Apart from unequal punishments awarded to similarly situated persons, an anomaly has also arisen between those policemen who were regular employees of the police department at the time of dismissal for participating in a strike and the enlisted constables, like the plaintiffs, the present appellants who were still on probation and were discharged under Rule 121 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (for short "the Rules of 1934") as applicable to the State of Haryana. The regular policemen were dismissed by invoking the provisions of Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India thereby dispensing with enquiry.

(3.) As the drama unfolded by passage of time the blow softened and the regular police officials were reinstated in service with 50% back wages by operation of orders passed by this Court many years ago. The similarly situated persons in other districts who were probationers were also reinstated in service, but had to face enquiries for the commission of grave misconduct of participating in the State-wide strike before their cases for confirmation could be considered.