LAWS(P&H)-1998-1-81

STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. CONSTABLE DALJIT SINGH

Decided On January 21, 1998
STATE OF PUNJAB Appellant
V/S
CONSTABLE DALJIT SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IS a constable not bound to remain present in the police lines during the period of suspension in spite of the provisions of Rule 16. 21 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, volume II? This is the primary question that arises for consideration in this regular second appeal A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) THE plaintiff -respondent was working as a Constable in the Punjab Police. On March 17, 1984, a case Under Section 9 of the Opium Act was registered against him. He was arrested. He was placed under suspension. He absented himself from duty. Thereafter, he reported for duty and was again absent from June 28, 1984. On account of continued absence, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. In spite of notice, he did not join the inquiry proceedings. Ultimately, the charge of wilful absence from duty was found to have been proved. The respondent was given a show cause notice. After considering his reply, the Superintendent of Police vide his order dated June 25, 1985 ordered his dismissal from service. The order was affirmed on appeal. Even the revision petition filed by the respondent was rejected by the Inspector General of Police vide his order dated March 23, 1987. Aggrieved by the three orders, the respondent filed a civil suit for a declaration that the order of dismissal was illegal and that he continued to be in service. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. The appeal filed by the State of Punjab having been dismissed, the defendants have filed the present second appeal.

(3.) THE claim made on behalf of the appellants has been controverted by Mr. Manu Bhandari who has appeared on behalf of the plaintiff -respondent. It has been contended by the counsel that the decision has been rightly followed by the Courts below and that in view of the ratio of this decision, a constable is not bound to remain present in the police lines and as such the charge of absence from duty cannot be sustained. Learned counsel has further submitted that the action of the appellants was violative of the provisions of Rule 16. 2 inasmuch as absence from duty was not the gravest act of misconduct so as to call for the extreme penalty of dismissal from service.