STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. CHANAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff was recruited as a Constable in 1957. It is averred that the plaintiff proceeded on leave on 27.2.1973 and he was to report back on duty on 10.3.1973, but he could not do so as he was ill and remained as such till 25.6.1973. Plaintiff was charged for remaining absent from duty and was dismissed after enquiry. He claimed that it was not a case of absence from duty but over-stay on leave.

(2.) The plaintiff challenged the order of dismissal in the suit for declaration on ground that the order was void. It was averred that neitherenquiry was conducted according to the Police Rules nor was he given a proper and reasonable opportunity to defend, cross-examine and lead evidence; copies of documents relied upon were not supplied. The allegations did not disclose any misconduct. Order passed is non-speaking and punishing authority did not apply its mind to the facts of the case inasmuch as it was not a case of gravest act of misconduct in terms of Rule 16.2(1) of the Punjab Police Rules. The plaintiff could not have been dismissed from service for the act attributed. The punishing authority did not apply its mind before passing the impugned order of dismissal.

(3.) The trial Court came to the conclusion that the suit was maintainable but the order terminating the services of the plaintiff was valid, thus, dismissed the suit. The respondent challenged the judgment of the trial Court in appeal, which was accepted and the lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that the order terminating the services was bad because it was non-speaking order as well as the punishing authority had not complied with Rules 16.2(1) of the Punjab Police Rules inasmuch as the dismissal order could be passed only for the gravest act of misconduct or the cumulative effect of continued misconduct and complete unfitness for police service. In making such indictment one has to keep regard with respect to length of service of the offender and his claim to pension, and relying upon Gurdev Singh v. The State of Haryana and others,1976 2 SLR 448, it came to the conclusion that the punishing authority was not alive to the said rule. Resultantly, the order of dismissal was bad. The judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court has been impugned by the state of Punjab in this Regular Second Appeal.