IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2689 of 2006 Date of Decision : May 08, 2008 Constable Krishan Chand ....Appellant Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Naveen Daryal, Advocate for the appellant. T.P.S. MANN, J. Suit for declaration filed by the appellant was dismissed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal on 28.3.2005 and so also his appeal by learned District Judge, Karnal vide judgment dated 3.2.2006. Aggrieved of the same, the appellant has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On the basis of a complaint made by Inspector Bhim Singh, SHO, Police Station Sadar, Karnal, a regular departmental enquiry was conducted against the appellant. When the charges were found to be true, show cause notice was served upon the appellant to which he filed his reply. On 30.7.1999, an order was finally passed, whereby the appellant was awarded punishment of stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect. He filed an appeal against the order of punishment but the same was Regular Second Appeal No. 2689 of 2006 dismissed. He challenged the order by filing a revision but the same was also dismissed. Allegation against the appellant was that he along with others, who were all deployed at Power House, Jundla were found absent when Inspector Bhim Singh checked the place. They were then found present in the Police Post, where they were consuming alcohol and watching television. On seeing Inspector Bhim Singh, they fled from the spot with liquor and glasses. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Constable Ram Asra, who was similarly charge-sheeted as the appellant, was exonerated by Inspector General of Police. Therefore, the punishment of stoppage of three annual increments awarded to the appellant was not warranted as he was discriminated against. As is clear from the judgments passed by the learned lower Courts, the only allegation against Constable Ram Asra was of blocking the passage of Inspector Bhim Singh. He was not charge- sheeted for consuming alcohol. On the other hand, the appellant had been charged for consuming alcohol. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant was not treated equally. It is then submitted that ASI Umed Singh and Constable Surinder Singh, who were also charged alongwith the appellant, - 2 Regular Second Appeal No. 2689 of 2006 stood exonerated of the charges and therefore, the appellant be dealt with similarly. As is clear from the report Ex. D6 of the Enquiry Officer, which has been referred to by the learned lower appellate Court in para 6 of its judgment, the Enquiry Officer failed to establish any charge against them. Charge was sustained only against the appellant and two others, namely, Constable Krishan Chand No. 109 and Constable Ram Asra No. 723. The latter was, however, exonerated when it was found by Inspector General of Police, Rohtak while deciding his appeal that he was not found consuming alcohol but had only blocked the passage of Inspector Bhim Singh, when he raided the Police Post. No other point has been urged by learned counsel for the appellant. The findings arrived at by the learned lower Courts are based on proper appreciation of the evidence, which was available on the record. No case is made out for any interference in the concurrent finding of facts. None of the substantial questions of law, as claimed by the appellant, arise for determination. The appeal is without any merit and, therefore, dismissed. - 3 Regular Second Appeal No. 2689 of 2006 ( T.P.S. MANN ) May 08, 2008 JUDGE satish Whether to be referred to the Reporters : YES / NO - 4