R.S.A.No. 1236 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 1236 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.1.2011 Constable Jasbir Singh ......Appellants Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Vivek Khatri, Advocate for the appellant Mr.Deepak Jindal, DAG, Haryana. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff Jasbir Singh filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that he was working as a Constable with Haryana Police Department w.e.f. 1.10.1989. On 25.3.2005, plaintiff had proceeded on three days' casual leave. The plaintiff was to report back on 29.3.2005 but since he had failed to report for duty, he was marked absent vide DDE No. 14. After the R.S.A.No. 1236 of 2010 (O&M) 2 recording of the said report, plaintiff reported for duty but he was not allowed to join as he was under the influence of liquor. Similarly on 14.4.2005, plaintiff was not allowed to perform his duty as he had indulged in un-parliamentary language with ASI Shiv Kumar. DDE No.15 was recorded in this regard. A departmental enquiry was initiated against the plaintiff by defendant No.3 vide order dated 26.4.2005. Enquiry Officer prepared summary of allegations, list of prosecution witnesses and the list of documents to be relied upon and served the same on the plaintiff on 23.5.2005. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer examined five witnesses to prove the allegations levelled against the plaintiff. Thereafter, chargsheet was served on the plaintiff on 9.7.2005. Plaintiff examined four witnesses in his defence. The enquiry officer gave a report that the charges levelled against the plaintiff stood duly proved. A show cause notice was issued to the plaintiff and the impugned order of punishment of stoppage of two future annual increments of the appellant-plaintiff with temporarily effect was passed. Appeal filed by the plaintiff against the impugned order dated 28.10.2005 was dismissed vide order dated 30.1.2006. Hence, the suit challenging orders dated 28.10.2005 and 30.1.2006. The defendants, in their written statement, averred that the enquiry officer, after conducting the enquiry as per rules, had given the report. On reply submitted by the plaintiff, minor punishment was imposed on the plaintiff. R.S.A.No. 1236 of 2010 (O&M) 3 On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the orders dated 28.10.2005 and 30.1.2006 passed by defendants No.3 and 2 respectively are illegal, null and void against the principles of natural justice and are liable to be set aside? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent (prohibitory) injunction? OPP. 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 4.Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit ? OPD 5. Relief.” The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 20.5.2008. Aggrieved by the same, defendants preferred an appeal and the same was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 24.7.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Hisar. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that as per Rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (for short 'the Rules), sanction was required to be taken from the District Magistrate before proceeding departmentally against the plaintiff. No Presenting Officer had been appointed in this case. The enquiry officer had himself cross- examined the witnesses. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on S.Krishnan Nair vs. The Divisional Superintendent (P.B.) Southern Railway Olavakod and others 1973(2) SLR 353, wherein, in para 11, it was held as under:- R.S.A.No. 1236 of 2010 (O&M) 4 “Any enquiry into charges against a civil servant or any domestic enquiry into the conduct of an employee must necessarily be in conformity with rules of fairplay. It has been noticed time and again by Courts that when the officer holding the enquiry takes a role different from that of a person who is to adjudicate onn the dispute impartially and without bias, he becomes disqualified and it could no longer be said that the result of the enquiry is fair. If in such circumstances the Court is called upon to interfere it will only be too willing to find that there has not been a fair deal to the person against whom the enquiry is held.” Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that Rule 16.38 of the Rules was applicable only to cases where employee was alleged to have committed a criminal offence. The plaintiff had been imposed only a minor punishment. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. The scope of judicial review regarding interference with punishment order is very limited. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is only to see the method/manner of awarding punishment. The Court is only concerned with the procedure adopted by the Punishing Authority. If the procedure adopted by the Punishing Authority is R.S.A.No. 1236 of 2010 (O&M) 5 according to rules and natural justice, then no interference with the punishment order is called for. The Civil Court cannot go into the merits of the case. In case, the finding of the Inquiry Officer is based on some evidence, then the Court cannot reappreicate the evidence or weigh the same like the Appellate Authority. So long as there is some evidence in support of the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained. Some defects in the inquiry has to be pointed out before the Civil Court can interfere with the punishment order. Further more, if defect is pointed out then the delinquent employee has to show as to what prejudice has been caused to him on account of the said defect. It has been held in Bank of India and another vs. Degala Suryanarayana, J.T. 1999 (4) Supreme Court 489 that strict rules of evidence are not application to the departmental proceedings.The Court exercising jurisdiction of judicial review is not to interfere with the finding of the fact arrived at in a departmental inquiry excepting in a case of mala fide or perversity. The Court cannot embark upon reappreciating the evidence or weigh the same like an Appellate Authority. The finding recorded by the disciplinary authority was immune from interference within the limited scope of power of judicial review applicable to the Court. In the present case, the allegations against the plaintiff are that when he had returned for duty after exhausting his casual leave, he was under the influence of liquor. Secondly, the plaintiff R.S.A.No. 1236 of 2010 (O&M) 6 had indulged in un-parliamentary language with his colleague. Enquiry was held against the plaintiff. Admittedly, the plaintiff duly participated in the enquiry. Chargesheet was served on the plaintiff and he had filed his reply. The plaintiff had also examined witnesses in his defence. A show cause notice was duly served on the plaintiff. Copy of the enquiry report was duly supplied to the plaintiff along with the show cause notice. The plaintiff had submitted reply to the show cause notice. A minor penalty has been imposed on the plaintiff by the punishing authority. Merely because the witnesses examined by the plaintiff had been cross-examined by the enquiry officer would not in itself sufficient to set aside the enquiry proceedings as the plaintiff had failed to establish that any prejudice had been caused to him. Rule 16.38 reads as under:- “Criminal offences by police officers and strictures by courts: procedure regarding: (1) Where a preliminary enquiry or investigation into a complaint alleging the commission by an enrolled police officer of a criminal offence in connection with his official relations with the public, establishes a prima facie case, a judicial prosecution shall normally follow. Where, however, the Superintendent of Police proposes to proceed in the case departmentally, the concurrence of the District Magistrate shall be obtained. Thus, as per the above provision, where allegation R.S.A.No. 1236 of 2010 (O&M) 7 against the police officer is of a criminal offence in connection with his official relation with the public then concurrence of District Magistrate is required for proceedings against the officer departmentally. In the present case, there are no allegations against the plaintiff qua criminal offence. Hence, the compliance of Rule 16.38 of the Rules was not required to be made in the present case. The plaintiff is member of disciplined force and cannot be allowed to do any such act while on duty which is not in consonance with his duties. Keeping in view the fact that only a minor punishment had been imposed on the plaintiff, the first Appellate Court has rightly dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE January 27, 2011 anita