STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. ONKAR NATH JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against a decree passed by the lower appellate Court in favour of the plaintiff in reversal of the decree of the trial Court by which the suit had been dismissed.

(2.) THE facts lie within a narrow compass. Onkar Nath was a Foot Constable and was attached to Police Station, Gurdaspur. On the night between 1-8-1953 and 2-8-1953 he was on duty in the c. I. A. . , Police Post at Sujanpur. One Ghunnu (Ghinnu) who was a suspect and was in police custody escaped that night. Onkar Nath was served with a charge-sheet for having been delinquent and neglectful in the discharge of his duties as a result of which the suspect had escaped from police custody. A departmental enquiry was held against him by Shri Surinder Pal singh, the then District Inspector, who made a report on 23-11-1953. According to the report onkar Nath was guilty of the charge which had been framed against him. The Superintendent of police, who was the punishing authority, ordered his dismissal on 2-12-1953. Onkar Nath filed an appeal to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, which was dismissed on 16-11-1954. A revision preferred to the Inspector-General of Police also failed on 27-7-1955. On 4-1-1956 Onkar Nath instituted a suit out of which the present appeal has arisen for a declaration that the order of dismissal of the plaintiff passed by the Superintendent of Police and the subsequent orders of the superior authorities maintaining the order of dismissal were unconstitutional, illegal, ultra vires, arbitrary, void and ineffectual, and that he still continued to be a member of the police force. The State denied the allegations of the plaintiff and asserted that the entire enquiry proceedings as well as the order of dismissal were in accordance with as the order of dismissal were in accordance with the rules and the law, and the dismissal was fully justified and was legal. (2a) On the pleadings of the parties the trial Court framed the following issues:

(3.) THE principal ground on which the learned Senior Sub-Judge considered that the order of dismissal was illegal is that no reasonable opportunity was afforded to the plaintiff for showing cause against the action proposed to be taken. It would be necessary to state a few more facts in order to appreciate the contentions which have been canvassed on behalf of both sides in the present case. As stated before, the enquiry officer submitted his report on 23-11-1953. The superintendent of Police, who was the authority competent to punish the respondent, recorded the following order on 30-11-1953 (Exhibit D. 4):