STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS Vs. JASPINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this Regular Second Appeal, the appellants have challenged the judgment and decree dated 19.3.2001 passed by the then Additional District Judge, Jalandhar whereby the appeal filed by the respondent was accepted.

(2.) The brief facts leading to this appeal are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit for a declaration that the order dated 17.2.1990 passed by the Commandant, PAP, Jalandhar vide which his six years approved service was forfeited with permanent effect and order dated 27.7.1990 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jalandhar vide which he dismissed him from service as also orders dated 5.3.1992 and 6.8.1992 passed by the Inspector General of Police, Jalandhar vide which he dismissed the revision and mercy petition of the plaintiff were illegal, contrary to the facts, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice and without application of judicial mind as also against the mandatory provisions of Punjab Police Rules. It is further pleaded by him that he was appointed as PAP Constable No. 13/349 on permanent basis and in the month of August, 1989, he was deployed in the Darbar Sahib Complex Amritsar, on duty. As per Daily Diary Report No. 22 dated 31.8.1989, made by ASI Mohinder Singh, he was found sitting and sleeping with arms and ammunition by his side at about 1.10 AM when the surprise checking was conducted by Assistant Commandant, Jalandhar. He held the plaintiff/respondent guilty and imposed punishment of forfeiture of six years approved service vide order dated 17.2.1990. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Deputy Inspector of Police, respondent No. 4 who also arbitrarily and whimsically and while acting against record, enhanced the punishment to dismissal vide order dated 27.7.1990. The plaintiff filed revision petition and mercy petition before respondent No. 3 but these were also rejected, vide orders dated 5.3.1992 and 6.8.1992. He termed all these orders as illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional, arbitrary, capricious, null and void, against the mandatory provisions of Rules and principles of natural justice on the grounds that the summary of allegations served upon him carried material, which was not subject-matter of inquiry, which prejudiced his case; that the copies of documents including daily diary report No. 22 of 31.8.1989, on which the Inquiry Officer relied, were not supplied to him despite demands; that the Inquiry Officer totally ignored the statements of defence witnesses while returning his finding; that the copy of findings of the Inquiry Report was not supplied to him; that no reasonable opportunity was given to him to file written statement; that the charge against him was vague and incomplete; that the Inquiry Officer acted as a Prosecutor and took into consideration the material illegally placed on record without giving any reference to the same to him; that the reply given by him to the charge sheet was not taken into consideration; that the orders were passed by the authorities without application of judicious mind and without taking into consideration the legal and factual submissions; that the orders were non-speaking and the punishment awarded to him is not compatible with the alleged misconduct.

(3.) The suit was contested. In the written statement, the defendants admitted that the plaintiff was employed as a Constable in PAP vide No. 13/349. A departmental inquiry regarding his negligence in duty on 31.1.1989 was conducted against him and the findings were given against him. At the time of checking by ASI Manohar Singh, he was found sleeping on duty on 31.8.1989. About the misconduct of the plaintiff, a report was made in the daily diary register at serial No. 22 dated 31.8.1989. The punishment of forfeiture of six years approved service of the plaintiff was passed by defendant No. 5 after carefully considering his reply to the show cause notice as also the facts proved on the record during the departmental inquiry. The impugned orders are legal in the eyes of law.