STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. ASA NAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Punjab has preferred this appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Paten against the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of this Court, dated December 6, 1963, allowing Regular Second Appeal No. 827 of 1963, and decreeing the suit of Asa Nand respondent an ex-Police Constable for a declaration to the effect that the orders of the Superintendent of Police, Karnal, dated May 1, 1959, and December 31, 1959 purporting to dismiss the plaintiff-respondent from service, were illegal and inoperative.

(2.) The relevant facts leading to the filing of the appeal lie in a narrow compass. The plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff), a selection grade Constable, was dismissed from service by the order of the Superintendent of Police, Karnal, dated May 1, 1959, after confronted enquiry and disciplinary proceedings. The charge against the plaintiff was that due to his neglect, a prisoner named Khemla had escaped from the plaintiff's custody. Khemla had been rearrested by Tejvir Singh. Statement of this Khemla had been recorded by Tejvir Singh regarding the circumstances in which he escaped from the custody of the plaintiff. In the departmental proceedings Khemla was examined as PW-4 in the presence of the plaintiff, but it appears that he did not fully support the case of the prosecution. When Tejvir Singh PW-5 appeared before the Enquiry Officer, he placed on the record during the course of his examination-in-chief his diary containing the purported statement of Khemla which was taken on the record of the enquiry proceedings as Exhibit P-5. The plaintiff had admittedly no opportunity to cross-examine Khemla in respect of what was alleged to have been stated by him to Tejvir Singh in his statement Exhibit P-5. It is admitted that while preferring his departmental appeal against the order of dismissal, dated May 1, 1959, the plaintiff made a specific grievance of his having been prejudiced by the above mentioned fact. He also made various other grievances in his appeal. The order of dismissal was set aside by the competent Appellate Authority on September 10, 1959, on grounds other than the one referred to above. The punishing authority was directed to proceed de novo with the enquiry from defence stage. In the post-remand proceedings findings were, again recorded against the plaintiff, and he was dismissed by the order of Shri J.S. Bawa, Superintendent of Police, Karnal, dated December 31, 1959, Exhibit D-12. In the course of the order the punishing authority observed as follows :-

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondent states that the above mentioned infirmity in the departmental proceedings was relied upon in support of the departmental appeal, but has been disposed of along with many other such contentions in the above quoted passage of the Appellate Authority. The learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to deny this fact.