RSA No. 546 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 546 of 2010 Date of Decision: 09.02.2011. Ex. S.P.O. Nirmal Singh .......Appellant Vs. The State of Punjab ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI Present: Mr. R.K.Arya, Advocate for the appellant. ..... M.M.S.BEDI, J. (ORAL) Suit of the plaintiff-appellant for declaration that the order dated 10.6.2006 discharging him from the service is illegal, null and void, stands dismissed by the courts below on the ground that as per the terms and conditions of appointment letter Ex.D-1, the plaintiff was deputed as S.P.O. (Special Police Officer) and that he being daily wager was not entitled to privileges under Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that as per provisions of Section 18 of Police Act, 1861, every special police officer shall have the same powers, privileges and protection as ordinary officer of the police. The reliance on Section 18 of Police Act, 1861 is misconceived as all concurrent findings of the fact have been arrived at by the courts below that RSA No. 546 of 2010 -2- the plaintiff-appellant being a daily wager temporary employee was not entitled to protection of the Punishment and Appeal Rules. The provisions of Section 18 relating to Special Police Officers are in context to the regular Special Police Officers. In view of the above circumstances, there is no ground to interfere in the findings arrived at by the courts below. Dismissed. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE February 09, 2011 Gurpreet