VINOD KUMAR Vs. HARYANA STATE THROUGH COLLECTOR KARNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and decree dated 17.09.2014 passed by the District Judge, Karnal, whereby the appeal preferred by State of Haryana against the judgment and decree dated 22.11.2011 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal, partly decreeing the suit of the appellant-plaintiff, has been allowed, dismissing the suit of the appellant-plaintiff by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 22.11.2011 passed by the trial Court.

(2.) It is the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that a well reasoned and justified judgment dated 22.11.2011 passed by the trial Court has been set aside by the Appellate Court without taking into consideration the mandatory Rules of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 as applicable to the State of Haryana, especially Rule 16.38 and 16.2. He contends that as per Rule 16.38 (1) and (2), approval of the District Magistrate had to be obtained by the punishing authority prior to proceeding with the departmental inquiry when a criminal offence for the same incident has taken place, for which an FIR has been registered as in the present case, where the appellant was arrayed as an accused in the FIR, for which a criminal trial ensued, in which the appellant has been acquitted. He contends that in the absence of the sanction given by the District Magistrate, the departmental inquiry could not have been held against the appellant and, therefore, the consequential proceeding including the issuance of a charge-sheet, the inquiry report, the punishing order and the order of the Appellate Authority including a Revisional Authority, cannot sustain and deserve to be set aside. His further contention is that as per Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules, while passing an order against a delinquent employee, the punishing authority has to take into consideration the length of service of the employee and since the appellant has more than 16 years of service to his credit, the claim of the appellant-plaintiff with regard to he being entitled to pension has not been considered and, therefore, the order as passed by the punishing authority is unsustainable and deserves to be set aside with a consequential effect thereof that the order of the Appellate Authority as well as the Revision Authority would fall. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Punjab State and others Versus Mohinder Singh 2002 (3) RSJ 231 and Haryana State through Collector, Karnal and another Versus Raghbir Singh 2002 (1) RSJ 196. He accordingly prays for setting aside the judgment passed by the Lower Appellate Court and for granting the benefit as per the trial Court judgment.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the sanction of the District Magistrate would be required in case the misconduct, which is attributed to the appellant-plaintiff, had something to do with the performance of his duties. Since the offence for which an FIR has been registered against the appellant has no connection whatsoever with his official duties, therefore, the sanction of the District Magistrate was not required prior to initiating departmental proceedings against him. His further contention is that the minimum period of service rendered by an employee, which would entitle him to be considered for grant of pension, is 20 years qualified service as per the Punjab Civil Services Rules. Since the appellant-plaintiff had only 16 years of service to his credit, his claim could not have been considered by the punishing authority for grant of the benefit of pension as he would not be entitled to the same. Prayer has, thus, been made for dismissal of the present appeal and for upholding the judgment passed by the Lower Appellate Court.