PUNJAB STATE AND OTHERS Vs. BALWINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Suit for declaration filed by plaintiff-respondent was decreed by the learned trial Court, which decision was upheld in appeal by the learned first appellate Court. Aggrieved of the same, the appellants filed the present appeal, which was dismissed on July 05, 2001. The appellants challenged the decision by moving the Hon'ble Supreme Court. After the grant of Special Leave, the consequential civil appeal was disposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on February 16, 2006 by remitting the matter to this Court for fresh consideration on merits. Hence, the matter is once again before this Court for disposal of the appeal.

(2.) In his suit, the plaintiff-respondent sought a declaration that the order dated 5.7.1995 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, PAP, Jalandhar Cantt., dismissing his appeal against order dated 31.8.1994 passed by the Commandant, 13th Bn., PAP, Jalandhar Cantt., was illegal, void, unlawful, unconstitutional, arbitrary, capricious, null, wanton, discriminatory and mala fide and, therefore, not binding on him and that he continued to serve the department as Head Constable as before and entitled to all rights, privileges and other service benefits attached to that post. Vide order dated 31.8.1994, the Commandant had dismissed the plaintiff from service, treating the period from 8.2.1994 to 16.3.1994 and from 19.4.1994 to 24.4.1994 of his absence as non-duty and without pay period, besides treating the entire period of suspension as period of suspension for all purposes.

(3.) The case of the plaintiff was that he joined the Punjab Police Department as Constable in the PAP, Jalandhar Cantt. on 27.7.1981. He was promoted as Head Constable in June, 1990. On 8.2.1994, when he was posted as Guard Incharge at the residence of an M.L.A., he was suddenly taken ill. He informed the Incharge Security and went to his village for treatment. He remained under the treatment of various doctors. He made several applications for grant of leave on medical ground. However, he was not informed of the orders passed on his applications. When he was declared fit, he reported back for duty on 26.4.1994 and treated as absent from duty for 77 days. A complaint was made by Senior Superintendent of Police (Rural), Jalandhar that on 8.2.1994, one Constable Gurdip Singh and Smt. Balwinder Kaur, wife of the plaintiff, hired one Maruti car from Taxi Stand, Phillaur and robbed its driver at gun point. It was also complained that the service weapon of the plaintiff was used in the commission of the said crime. A departmental enquiry was conducted by Assistant Commandant, 13th Battalion, PAP, Jalandhar against the plaintiff on the allegations of absence from duty and actively aiding and abetting the robbery. On receipt of the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Commandant dismissed him from service vide order dated 31.8.1994. The period from 8.2.1994 to 16.3.1994 and from 19.4.1994 to 26.4.1994 was treated as non-duty and without pay period. However, the period from 17.3.1994 to 18.4.1994 was treated as leave on medical ground. An appeal was, thereafter, preferred by the plaintiff but the same stood rejected by Deputy Inspector General of Police, PAP vide order dated 5.7.1995. It was pleaded that the plaintiff was not absent from duty and had gone on leave. As such, no enquiry could be conducted against him. No sanction of the District Magistrate was obtained for conducting the departmental enquiry as per Rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). The plaintiff was not given the copy of documents and also not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses. The impugned order was passed by the Commandant in contravention of Rule 16.2.