DEVI LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in this application is for condonation of delay of 32 days in re-filing the appeal.

(2.) It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Courts below have failed to appreciate that the evidence which has been led by the respondent - Department has been duly countered by the appellant - plaintiff by producing his evidence, which has not been properly appreciated and the finding, therefore, recorded by the Enquiry Officer in its enquiry report (Ex.P-6) is not sustainable. Further contention has been raised that no approval of the District Magistrate has been obtained as required under Rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Services Rules, 1934 (hereinafter referred to as '1934 Rules'). It has further been asserted that the order dtd. 25/4/1999 which has been passed by the respondents, whereby, the earned leave and half pay leave have been deducted during his suspension period is illegal. She, therefore, submits that the impugned order dtd. 31/1/1999 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Hisar, whereby, two increments with permanent effect have been ordered as punishment, could not sustain. The Courts below have not appreciated the legal position and therefore, the said judgments cannot sustain.

(3.) Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krushnakant B. Parmar Vs. Union of India and another 2012 (3) SCC 178 to contend that where the misconduct attributed to the delinquent employee, the stand of the employee has to be taken into consideration. She, thus, contends that the present appeal deserves to be allowed and the suit as filed by the appellant - plaintiff deserves to be decreed.