IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 1238 of 2008 Date of decision: 16.4.2009 Tarsem Singh Constable … Appellant Versus. State of Punjab and others … Respondents CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. B.S.Jaswal, Advocate, for the appellant Mr. B.S. Sra, DAG Punjab for the respondent-State … ARVIND KUMAR, J: This is plaintiff's second appeal directed against the judgment and decree of the Courts below whereby his suit for declaration has been dismissed. Plaintiff brought the present suit alleging therein that he was appointed as Constable in the Police Department, Punjab. According to him, his work and conduct remained satisfactory during his entire service. He alleged that vide order dated 6.9.1993, Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar, i.e. defendant No.4 ordered for forfeiture of his 5 years' service illegally and unlawfully on the ground of misappropriation of 29 and 7 liters of diesel which he never misappropriated. He further alleged that his absence from duty was not intentional as he was not keeping well for which he submitted medical bills and certificate to the department but the department wrongly imposed the afore-stated penalty. Plaintiff also alleged that in the departmental enquiry so conducted against him, no opportunity of personal hearing was given and therefore, the principles of natural justice have been violated. Hence, the suit. Upon notice of the suit, defendants in their written statement admitted the appointment of the plaintiff as Constable in the police department but stated that he was a habitual absentee and had been awarded 21 minor and two major punishments on RSA No. 1238 of 2008 -2- different occasions. It was stated that a charge-sheet was issued to which the plaintiff submitted his reply and on considering the same, it was found to be unsatisfactory and thus, the impugned order as stated above, was passed. Trial Court upon appreciation of evidence adduced on record, vide judgment and decree dated 7.5.2005 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved therefrom, the plaintiff preferred an appeal which too came to be dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 1.9.2007 passed by the first appellate Court. Hence, the present second appeal by the plaintiff. Both the Courts below upon appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties, have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that it stands categorically admitted by the plaintiff in his cross-examination that he remained absent from duty and that 21 minor and two major punishments were awarded to him. He further admitted the deficiency of fuel as per the log book. He also admitted that a show-cause notice was issued to him whereafter a regular enquiry was conducted in which witnesses were examined in his presence and an opportunity was given to him to cross- examine them which he did not avail and thereafter, on completion of the enquiry, a copy of the enquiry report was duly supplied to him. More over, the allegations of the plaintiff stand belied from the testimony of defendants' witness, namely, DW-1 DSP Simarjit Singh in whose cross-examination, which is in positive, it has come that after completion of enquiry, report of enquiry was given to the plaintiff and that show-cause notice in regard to proposed punishment with an opportunity of hearing was also given to him. All this goes on to show that the plaintiff himself has admitted that the enquiry was conducted in accordance with law. Nothing has been shown that the findings of fact so recorded by the Courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record. No question of law, muchless substantial, arises in the present appeal. Consequently, the appeal being without any merit is hereby dismissed in limine. April 16, 2009 ( ARVIND KUMAR) JS JUDGE ( ARVIND KUMAR ) April 16, 2009 JUDGE JS