R.S.A. No. 3260 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No. 9763-C of 2008 and R.S.A. No. 3260 of 2008 Date of Decision: 02.4.2009 Rajinder Singh alias Rajinder Kumar ...Appellant. Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. L.M. Gulati, Advocate for the appellant. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. Being unsuccessful before the courts below, the plaintiff has approached this Court by way of the present regular second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 14.11.2007 passed by the lower appellate court, confirming that of the trial court dated 25.12.2005 vide which the suit of the plaintiff for declaration was dismissed. Sans unessentials, according to the plaintiff, the facts of the case are that he was posted as Constable in the Punjab Police on permanent basis and while serving as such in District Gurdaspur, he was dismissed from service by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gurdaspur vide order dated 23.3.1999, on the allegations that he R.S.A. No. 3260 of 2008 -2- remained absent from duty for 4 months 27 days and 10 hours. It was pleaded that though a departmental enquiry was conducted against the plaintiff but he was not given any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses; no show cause notice or legal and valid charge-sheet was served; no personal hearing was given to the plaintiff and the enquiry was got conducted against him in violation of the statutory provisions of the Punjab Police Rules. He served a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure upon the defendants but to no effect which gave rise to the filing of the suit for declaration to the effect that the impugned order dated 23.3.1999 terminating his services which was confirmed by the appellate authority was illegal, null and void and not binding on him. To controvert the stand of the plaintiff, the defendants filed a joint written statement raising various preliminary objections. It was pleaded that the plaintiff was habitual absentee and remained absent from duty for 79 days on different occasions and the said period was treated as his non-duty period. It was further pleaded that a regular departmental enquiry was conducted against the plaintiff as per rules and he was given opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses and that a show cause notice along with finding of the enquiry report was issued to him. But the plaintiff did not file any reply and the punishing authority passed a legal and valid order dismissing him from service. According to the defendants, the plaintiff filed departmental appeal before the appellate authority and the said appeal was also rejected. It was also pleaded that the impugned order as well as the appellate authority's order were legal and valid. The other R.S.A. No. 3260 of 2008 -3- averments made in the plaint were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the suit was made. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed various issues and on appreciation of the oral as well as the documentary evidence produced on record held that the plaintiff remained absent from duty without getting the leave sanctioned for a long period and, therefore, the impugned orders passed by defendants No.2 and 3 were legal and valid. Accordingly, the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 24.5.2005 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the lower appellate court which, vide judgment and decree dated 14.11.2007 affirmed the findings recorded by the trial court and dismissed the appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the impugned judgments with his assistance. Learned counsel for the appellant made efforts to persuade this Court to come to a different conclusion than the one arrived at by the courts below but could not show any material on the basis of which it could be held that the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below suffer from any misreading or misappreciation of evidence which may warrant interference by this court in the regular second appeal. Both the courts had concurrently held that the enquiry was conducted in accordance with the Punjab Police Rules holding the plaintiff to be guilty of wilful absence from duty and that he did not file reply to the show cause notice issued to him along with the enquiry report. No question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises in this appeal for determination of this Court. R.S.A. No. 3260 of 2008 -4- In view of the above, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. There is a delay of 176 days in filing the appeal. Since the appeal has been dismissed on merits, no separate order is being passed in CM No. 9763-C of 2008 for condonation of 176 days' delay in filing the appeal and the same is disposed of as such. April 02, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE