IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 3441 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: September 12, 2011. Jaswinder Singh. ...... APPELLANT (s) Versus State of Haryana and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate for the appellant. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 08.04.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Karnal dismissing appeal filed by present appellant-plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 27.10.2009 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division), Karnal vide which suit filed by appellant-plaintiff was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned judgments passed by learned courts below. RSA No.3441 of 2010 Briefly stated, appellant-plaintiff filed this suit for a decree for declaration to the effect that orders dated 11.05.2006, 30.06.2006, 21.09.2006 and 30.10.2007 are illegal, ultra vires and against the principles of natural justice and deserve to be quashed alongwith consequential relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to reinstate the appellant- plaintiff in service and to pay all the consequential benefits. Appellant- plaintiff was recruited as Constable on 30.10.2003. He was recruited for training with P.T.C., Madhuban on 04.04.2006. However, while under training he absented from 26.04.2006 to 10.05.2007. His services were terminated/discharged under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules vide order dated 11.05.2006. He filed appeal against the said order and however, the same was dismissed by Inspector General of Police, Haryana Armed Police, Madhuban on 30.06.2006. He also filed mercy appeal before Additional Director General of Police, Haryana Armed Police, Madhuban against dismissal of his appeal, which was also dismissed vide order dated 22.09.2006. Second appeal against order dated 22.09.2006 was also dismissed by the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Govt. of Haryana, Home Department vide order dated 30.10.2007 All those orders have been challenged on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to him. Suit filed by him was dismissed by learned trial Court. Appeal filed against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Karnal. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant- plaintiff that very perusal of order discharging him from service shows that he was discharged on the plea that he was not likely to prove an efficient 2 RSA No.3441 of 2010 police officer. Hence, it is contended that same amounts to stigma and hence, the order is bad and the same has been passed without holding any enquiry and without affording any opportunity to the appellant for being heard. Admittedly, appellant-plaintiff is governed by the Punjab Police Rules. He was discharged during probation under the said Rules. The learned courts below have placed reliance upon Sher Singh v. State Haryana (1994) 2 SLR 100 (P&H) SLR 100 wherein it was held that a constable can be discharged from service under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules inspite of the fact that there is a specific allegation which may even amount to misconduct against him. It was further observed that competent authority can form his opinion on the basis of periodical reports as contemplated under Rule 19.5 of the said Rules and on the basis of any other relevant material. Hence, it was specifically held that a Constable can be discharged from service even if there is a specific allegation which may amounts to misconduct against him. Hence, by placing reliance upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court, the impugned judgments were passed by learned courts below. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by the Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by both the Courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial 3 RSA No.3441 of 2010 question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) September 12, 2011. JUDGE 'om’ 4