IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No.302 of 2008 Date of Decision: 27.4.2009 Nachhater Singh. ....... Appellant through Shri Sandeep Arora, Advocate. Versus State of Punjab and others. ....... Respondents through Shri N.S.Virk, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against judgments and decrees dated 31.1.2006 and 29.1.2007 passed respectively by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar (hereinafter described as `the trial Court') and the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar (referred to hereinafter as `the First Appellate Court') whereby the suit and the appeal of the plaintiff- appellant have been dismissed. The appellant filed a suit for declaration that order dated 19.11.1999 passed by the Commandant, 2nd Battalion, I.R.B., Ladda Kothi, Sangrur (for brevity, `respondent no.4') whereby he was dismissed from R.S.A.No.302 of 2008 -2- .... service by treating his period of absence from 30.11.1998 to 19.11.1999 as non-duty period, is null & void being illegal, wrong, against the Punjab Police Rules (for short, `the Rules') as well as principles of natural justice. A further prayer for issuance of mandatory injunction was also made directing the respondents to reinstate him in service and grant all consequential benefits along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the due date as if the impugned order was never passed. In the plaint, it was pleaded by the appellant that he had joined service in the Police Department of Government of Punjab on 1.1.1993 as Constable and while he was posted as such in 2nd Battalion, I.R.B., Ladda Kothi, Sangrur, he was issued a charge sheet for absence from duty with effect from 30.11.1998 to 19.11.1999. It was further pleaded that the departmental enquiry which was held by the respondents was held without associating him with the same and the period of absence was treated as non- duty period which is null & void. The appellant had averred that before passing the impugned order, the enquiry was to be conducted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 16.25 of the Rules and that even if, the action had to be taken according to the said rule, his previous service had to be taken into consideration. The respondents, upon notice, appeared and contested the suit by pleading that the appellant had remained willfully absent from duty for 354 days without getting the leave sanctioned. It was further pleaded that the enquiry was held as Darshan Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police R.S.A.No.302 of 2008 -3- .... was appointed as enquiry officer on 6.4.1999, who served notice upon the appellant on 14.5.1999, 26.9.1999 and 30.11.1999 which were received by him under his signatures, but even then he did not join the enquiry. Thereafter, the enquiry was conducted ex parte and the report was submitted holding him guilty of the charge levelled against him. A show cause notice dated 30.9.1999 was sent to the appellant,but he did not file any reply thereto and consequently, the impugned order was passed as he was habitual absentee having remained absent for more than 75 days on earlier occasions. The parties went to trial on the following issues:- 1. Whether order dated 19.11.1999 is illegal, void and wrong?OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration?OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction?OPP 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 5. Whether the Civil Court at Jalandhar has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit?OPD 6. Whether no legal and valid notice u/s 80 CPC was served upon defendants?OPD 7. Relief. On appraisal of the entire evidence on record, the trial Court R.S.A.No.302 of 2008 -4- .... concluded that before passing the impugned order, sufficient opportunities were given to the appellant and that the enquiry was validly held. Consequently, the suit was dismissed. In appeal, the findings recorded by the trial Court were affirmed by the First Appellate Court. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse and warrant interference. He further contended that the notices issued to the appellant by the enquiry officer had not been received by him and were actually received by his mother and, therefore, it cannot be said that he was duly served or that he was having knowledge of the enquiry proceedings. He argued that according to the provisions of Order 7 Rule 22 of the C.P.C., the service of notice upon the mother is no service as it is the male member of the family, who could receive the summons or notice and, therefore, the entire enquiry proceedings stood vitiated. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the appellant has been punished for a serious misconduct as he belongs to a disciplined force and, therefore, the findings recorded by the Courts below are perfectly in order. I have thoughtfully considered the rival contentions/ arguments and have perused the impugned judgments. In my opinion, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for R.S.A.No.302 of 2008 -5- .... the appellant are misplaced. It is evident from the reading of the impugned judgments that the enquiry officer, during the course of proceedings, had issued notices dated 21.4.1999, 30.4.1999, 14.5.1999, 17.6.1999 and 7.8.1999 which were sent at the home address of the appellant through special messenger asking him to join the enquiry. These notices were either received by the appellant himself or by his brother. It has been so held by the trial Court. Thereafter, the enquiry officer conducted the proceedings and submitted his report holding the appellant guilty of willful absence from duty. After receipt of the enquiry officer, a show cause notice dated 30.9.1999 was sent to the appellant proposing punishment of dismissal from service at his home address which was received by his mother, namely, Smt.Balbir Kaur. So the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had no knowledge of the proceedings is totally erroneous. It is only after the enquiry proceedings were concluded and the report was submitted by the enquiry officer, that the show cause notice was issued which was received by his mother. It is apparent that the appellant was in the know of the proceedings throughout and he did not participate therein and failed to bring on record any material to off-set the charges levelled against him. It is to be noticed that the appellant was a member of the disciplined force and the standards of discipline are expected to be much higher and the absenteeism or delinquency is to be treated as exceptional, rather than as a norm. The appellant remained absent for 354 days which is R.S.A.No.302 of 2008 -6- .... fairly a long period by any standard. Rule 16.24 of the Rules on which reliance has been placed, has been adequately complied with since a number of opportunities were given to the appellant to explain the charges against him. Therefore, the grievance of the appellant is totally without any basis. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the previous conduct should have been taken into consideration while passing the impugned order is of no assistance to him for the reason that his previous service record also shows that he unauthorisedly remained absent for more than 75 days. In this view of the matter, the appellant cannot derive any advantage or benefit as he did not enjoy good service record. In any eventuality, as noticed above, the appellant belonged to a disciplined force, the absence from duty is an extremely serious misconduct which cannot be dealt with leniently as has been prayed by the learned counsel for the appellant. No question of law has been shown to have arisen for determination in this appeal which is held to be without any merit and is dismissed. April 28,2009 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge