R.S.A. No.937 of 1998 -1- ****** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No.937 of 1998 Date of decision:07.07.2010. State of Punjab and others ...Appellants Versus Balwant Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Sandeep Moudgil, DAG, Punjab. None for the respondent. ***** S.D.ANAND, J. The plaintiff – respondent, a police recruit, was discharged from service by the Competent Authority vide order dated 18.04.1991 (Ex.PW2/3 on the Trial Court record). That order is extracted hereunder: - “Recruit constable Balwant Singh No.5077/Majitha son of Dalip Singh r/o village Talwandi Dogran, P.S. Jandiala, Distt. Majitha was sent to PRTC Jahan Khelan Distt. Hoshiarpur in batch No.167 for his primary training. He is absent without leave and without prior information since 26.10.1990. From this it is proved that the recruit Constable is not interested in his training and service and he is not likely to become an efficient police officer. Therefore, the abovesaid recruit Constable is discharged from the service of Punjab Police R.S.A. No.937 of 1998 -2- ****** under rule Police Rules 12.21 w.e.f. 8.4.19991. The period of absence from 26.10.1990 to 8.4.1991 is treated as leave without pay. Order be registered and all concerned to note.” The learned Trial Court invalidated that order by holding that the it was stigmatic in character and it could not be affirmed for want of inquiry. It further held that the order was not in consonance with the provisions of Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules, which do otherwise authorize the Competent Authority to discharge a police recruit within the indicated period. In the plaint, the plaintiff – respondent had made a precise averment (in para 9 thereof) that he had reported on duty but he was served with the impugned show cause notice in respect of his absence for the period 26.10.1990 to 15.12.1990, that he responded to the notice and that the response was buttressed by a medical certification dated 22.12.1990. That it was not taken into consideration the averment in the plaint proceeds to aver and that the Competent Authority was ordained to consider his request for treating the period of his absence as leave of kind due. The plea raised was the non-consideration of his requests aforementioned indicated that the impugned order came to be granted in routine and without application of mind. In the corresponding para of the written statement, all that the appellants conceded was the issuance of a show cause notice and also the fact that the response was offered by the plaintiff – respondent requesting for the period of his absence being treated as the leave of the kind due. It would be evident from the perusal of the impugned order R.S.A. No.937 of 1998 -3- ****** that it does not, at all, take notice of the response offered by the plaintiff – respondent. Likewise, the impugned order does not, at all, indicate whether the request made by the plaintiff – respondent for treating the period of his absence as the leave of the kind due was, at all, considered or not. The order apparently suffers from the vice of non-application of mind. The learned State counsel has not been able to invite the attention of this Court to any substantial question of law which arises for consideration by this Court. The well reasoned findings recorded by the learned Trial Court and also the learned First Appellate Court deserve affirmation and it is so ordered accordingly. There being no substantial question of law for consideration, this Regular Second Appeal shall stand dismissed. Disposed of accordingly. July 07, 2010 (S.D.ANAND) vinod* JUDGE