R.S.A.No. 2418 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 2418 of 2009 Date of decision: 7.10. 2009 Balram Singh Ex-Constable ......Appellants Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Puneet Bassi, Advocate, for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff Balram Singh filed a suit for declaration, which was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Gurgaon vide judgment and decree dated 30.8.2008. In appeal, the said judgment and decree were upheld by the District Judge, Gurgaon vide judgment and decree dated 18.2.2009. Hence, the present appeal. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the lower appellate Court in para Nos. 2 and 3 of its judgment, are as under:- “2. Brief fact, as pleaded by the plaintiff in the R.S.A.No. 2418 of 2009 2 plaint, are that on the basis of false and frivolous allegations of deliberate absence for 271 days on five different occasions, a regular departmental enquiry was conducted against him. The enquiry officer in an illegal and unlawful manner held him guilty by taking into consideration his past absence record. On the basis of the report of the enquiry officer, the defendant No.2 vide order bearing No.751-55 dated 25.7.2006 dismissed him from service in an illegal and unlawful manner, without considering the fact that in the month of July, 2004 he suffered from some evil spirit and to get rid therefrom, he had to go to Shri Mehandipur Balaji (Rajasthan) where he remained till April, 2005, because of no treatment available of such disease in any Government Hospital. After getting cured from the said disease, he joined his duty on 20.4.2005. Hence, his absence from duty was neither willful nor intentional. He preferred an appeal against the said dismissal order but the same too was dismissed by defendant No.3 passing a non speaking order bearing D.B.No.110-I dated 21.2.2007. He then filed revision but the same was also rejected by defendant No.4 vide order bearing Endst. No.357 dated 10.1.2008. None of the defendants had taken into consideration his 17 years service with them, as required under rule 16.02 R.S.A.No. 2418 of 2009 3 of the Punjab Police Rules. He requested them to set aside his dismissal order but of no avail, hence the suit. 3. Upon notice, the defendants-respondents contested the suit by filing joint written statement wherein they took various preliminary objections regarding maintainability, locus standi, cause of action, jurisdiction and estoppel etc. and that the plaintiff was habitual of remaining willful absent and procuring false medical certificates. He was censured on six occasions for remaining absent, sleeping on duty and procuring false medical certificates, besides stoppage of one annual increment twice and dismissal from service which was ultimately reduced to that of stoppage of three future increments with permanent effect by DGP, Haryana vide order dated 30.3.2000. On merits, it was averred that during the period from 17.7.2004 to 26.4.2005, he remained absent from duty for 271 days on five different occasions as per details given in para No.2 and 3 of the written statement. His aforesaid act amounted to gross indiscipline and grave departmental misconduct on his part. Therefore, a departmental enquiry was ordered against him. The enquiry office served the summary of allegations accompanied with list of prosecution witnesses and copies of the relevant documents on R.S.A.No. 2418 of 2009 4 9.5.2005 but he again absented himself intentionally, therefore, he was issued seven notices during the period from 24.5.2005 to 27.10.2005 fully detailed in the same paras which were duly received by him or his family members i.e. daughter and brothers but he did not dare to turn up and ultimately the then Superintendent of Police, Gurgaon vide letter dated 14.11.2005 directed the enquiry officer to proceed ex parte against him. Even thereafter, the enquiry officer sent the summary of allegations accompanied by list of prosecution witnesses and relevant document to the home address of the plaintiff through special messenger vide notice dated 17.11.2005 which he duly received on 18.11.2005 but he neither turned up nor expressed his inability to do so. Thereafter, the enquiry officer, after recording statements of 6 witnesses, framed the charge sheet and get the same approved from the Superintendent of Police. Thereafter, he sent another notice No.55 dated 6.6.2006, which was duly received by the plaintiff on 7.6.2006 but as usual he did not turn up. Ultimately, the enquiry officer submitted his findings on 1.7.2006 holding him guilty whereupon the defendant No.2 issued show cause notice to him vide No.654 dated 3.7.2006 proposing therein penalty of dismissal from service as well as mentioning his past service record. He submitted his R.S.A.No. 2418 of 2009 5 reply on 25.7.2006 and same was considered and he was also afforded personal hearing on 25.7.2006. Thereafter, the defendant No.2 passed the order D.B. No.527 dated 25.7.2006, dismissing him from service. The defendant No.3 before rejected his appeal also heard him personally on 4.12.2006. The revision filed by him against the order passed by defendant No.3 was also dismissed by defendant No.4. The enquiry was conducted against the plaintiff in accordance with the rules and the orders passed by the defendants No.2 to 4 were speaking and well reasoned. While denying the other material averments of the plaint, dismissal of the suit was prayed.” On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for declaration as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 5. . Whether the civil court has got no jurisdiction R.S.A.No. 2418 of 2009 6 to try and entertain the present suit ? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the present suit for his act and conduct as he has not come to the Court with clean hands? OPD 7. Relief. ” After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. The plaintiff was working as a Constable with the defendants. He joined the service on 3.10.1989. He was dismissed from service on account of his absence of 271 days from duty on different occasions. A regular departmental enquiry was conducted against the plaintiff. The Inuiry Officer submitted his report to the effect that the charge of absence was fully proved against the plaintiff. The plaintiff had also remained absent for 602 days on different occasions. 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 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 R.S.A.No. 2418 of 2009 7 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 caused to him on account of the said defect. 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. In the present case, the plaintiff was dismissed from service after holding proper enquiry. Since the plaintiff was habitual of remaining absent, the order of dismissal was passed by the competent authority. In these circumstances, the Courts below had rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2009 anita