THE PUNJAB STATE Vs. KASHMIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) While hearing the application under Order 41 Rule 5 read with Section 151 C.P.C. for stay of execution proceedings, as per the request made by the counsel for the parties, arguments on the main appeal itself were heard.

(2.) This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court dated 24.4.1997. The reference to basic facts would be necessary in order to determine the controversy arising in the present appeal.

(3.) Kashmir Singh had joined the police force on 10.4.1981 as Constable. It is contended that he was promoted as Head Constable and was working as such till 21.10.1993 when he was dismissed from service vide order passed by the disciplinary authorities. He claims that he worked sincerely and honestly which earned him the required promotion. However, the respondent was charged with unauthorised absence from 3.3.1992 to 20.3.1992, 3.8.1992 to 7.8.1992 and from 26.8.1992 to 4.11.1992 for a total period of three months without leave and permission. The plaintiff contended that the disciplinary proceedings were bad and contrary to law and, in fact, his absence during this period was because he was suffering from prolapse of inter vertebral disc and he was in a bad shape and confined to bed as per medical advice. As soon as the plaintiff got well he came and reported for duty. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff was dismissed by the Inspector General of Police, Border Range, Amritsar. Once the appeal of the plaintiff was dismissed he served a notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure and filed the suit in question. Upon notice, the defendants failed to file the written statement despite number of opportunities and their defence was struck off. The learned trial court vide a detailed judgment decreed the suit of the plaintiff on 16.5.1996 and set aside the order of dismissal dated 21.10.1993. The learned trial court came to the conclusion that the impugned order was in violation of Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules. Except the contention that the absence was not a grave misconduct which would entail penalty of dismissal upon the plaintiff, all other grounds were, however, rejected by the trial court.