RSA No. 4498 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 4498 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.05.2011 Satinder Singh ... Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.N.MITTAL Present: Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate for the appellant. **** L.N.MITTAL, J (ORAL). CM No. 13419-C-2010 Allowed as prayed for. CM No. 13420-C-2010 For the reasons mentioned in the application which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of 63 days in filing the appeal is condoned. RSA No. 4498 of 2010 Satinder Singh-plaintiff having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below has filed the instant second appeal. Plaintiff was working as Special Police Officer. He was dismissed from service vide impugned order dated 07.06.2002 passed by defendant No. 4-Senior Superintendent of Police. Departmental appeal against the said order preffered by the plaintiff stands dismissed by the defendant No. 3-Deputy Inspector General of Police vide order dated 10.10.2002. Both these orders have been challenged in the suit by the plaintiff alleging that he has been discharged from police force illegally and RSA No. 4498 of 2010 (O&M) -2- in violation of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 and Punjab Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 and also against the principles of natural justice etc. The defendants while admitting that plaintiff was working as Special Police Officer on daily wages, pleaded that the plaintiff absented from duty since 07.11.2001 without leave or intimation. Show cause notice was issued to the plaintiff. His father reported that he i.e. Plaintiff had gone to Malaysia. Plaintiff's father refused to receive the notice. Thereafter, impugned order dated 07.06.2002 was rightly passed. The said order as well as appellate order dated 10.10.2002 are legal and valid. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Batala vide judgment and decree dated 09.05.2007 dismissed the plaintiff's suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur vide judgment and decree dated 29.04.2010. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed the instand second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that impugned order is stigmatic and by way of punishment, but it was passed without holding regular enquiry and without affording opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff and, therefore, the impugned order dated 07.06.2002 as well as the appellate order dated 10.10.2002 are illegal and null and void. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on un-reported judgment dated 03.11.1998 in CWP No. 13527 of 1998 titled Raj Kumar and another V. State of Punjab and others. RSA No. 4498 of 2010 (O&M) -3- I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention, but find myself unable to accept the same. The plaintiff himself has pleaded that he remained absent from duty since 05.11.2001 till 20.06.2002 being confined to bed. It is also indisputed that the plaintiff did not send any leave application or intimation to the concerned authority for remaining absent from duty. In view of these admitted facts, no further enquiry was required. In addition to the aforesaid, it has been proved by defendant that show cause notice dated 18.03.2002 was issued to the plaintiff. However, his father reported on it that the plaintiff had gone to Malaysia. The principles of natural justice were also thus complied with. Apart from the above, the plaintiff has not produced his passport in evidence to depict that he had not gone to Malaysia, although there is specifc averment by the defendants that the plaintiff had gone to Malaysia. Consequently, adverse assumption arises against the plaintiff. Apart from it, the plaintiff has also not examined his father as witness. It is the defendants' case that plaintiff's father had reported on the show cause notice that plaintiff had gone to Malaysia. Inspite thereof, plaintiff did not examine his own father as witness. For this reason as well, adverse assumption arises against the plaintiff. It may be added that Punjab Police Rules and Punjab Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules were not applicable to the plaintiff as he was only Special Police Officer on daily wages and was not civil servant or member of the police force. In view of the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case, the plaintiff has been rightly non-suited by both the lower courts. Judgment in the case of Raj Kumar (supra) is, therefore, not RSA No. 4498 of 2010 (O&M) -4- applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Concurrent finding recorded by the courts below to non-suit the plaintiff is fully justified by the evidence on record and the admitted facts. The said finding is neither perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for adjudication in the instant second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine being devoid of merit. (L.N.MITTAL) JUDGE May 10, 2011 divyanshi