RSA No.4102 of 2000 [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... CM No.3438-C of 2009 RSA No.4102 of 2000(O&M) Decided on : May 19, 2009 Mohinder Singh ... Appellant VERSUS State of Punjab and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Dharam Pal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Surinder Kapoor, Additional Advocate General Punjab for the respondents. A.N.JINDAL, J.- For the reasons stated in the application, CM No.3438-C of 2009 is allowed and the appeal is restored to its original number. RSA No.4102/2000 : This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18.4.2000 passed by Additional District Judge, Ropar, dismissing the appeal of the plaintiff – appellant (herein referred as `plaintiff') against the judgment dated 27.10.1997 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Ropar, dismissing the suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff with regard to forfeiting of his one year approved service. RSA No.4102 of 2000 [ 2 ] ASI Mohinder Singh, a regular government employee of the Police Force, State of Punjab, was posted in the office of Superintendent of Police, Sangrur. The allegations levelled against the plaintiff are that Superintendent of Police Sh.Narinder Singh ordered to recruit Paramjit Singh as Constable in accordance with `Sports Quota Rules' as he was national level player and the plaintiff was to issue the formal order, but the plaintiff without completing the formalities and getting formal order issued from the Superintendent, gave Number 1079 to the said Constable. The plea set up by the plaintiff is that he could not get issued such orders for want of medical and character verification and the formal order could be issued only after completing the documentary formalities, for which the presence of said Constable (Paramjit Singh) was necessary. It was further pleaded by the plaintiff that he was exonerated in the enquiry. However, despite that fact, he was punished accordingly. The suit was contested by the defendants – respondents by pleading that though the Enquiry Officer had exonnerated the appellant to some extent, yet he had held him guilty of the lapse that it was the duty of the appellant to call the candidate repeatedly and bring the matter to the notice of the Senior Officers, but he failed to do so. Consequently, the Punishing Authority gave a dissenting note on the findings of the Enquiry officer and issued show cause notice for forfeiture of one year service temporarily. From the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the impugned order dated 6.2.1994 is illegal, null RSA No.4102 of 2000 [ 3 ] and void and as such inoperative against the plaintiff as alleged? OPP 2. Is plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration as claimed through the suit? OPP 3. Whether suit is bad for non-joinder of Deputy Inspector General of Police, Patiala Range? OPP 4. Is this suit not maintainable? OPD 5. Whether plaintiff has no cause of action to bring this suit? OPD 6. Relief.” The Trial Court dismissed the suit, so as the lower Appellate Court. The substantial question of law involved in this appeal is, “whether the appellant was required to be served a dissenting note passed by the Punishing Authority, before awarding sentence?” Arguments heard. Record perused. There is no denying a fact that the appellant was posted in the office of the Superintendent of Police, Sangrur and it was his duty to get issued the formal order of the recruitment of Constable Paramjit Singh, but he did not do so, for want of completing the documentary formalities, by the said Constable. He orally allotted a Constabulary Number to him and did not get issued the formal orders from Superintendent of Police. It is also not in dispute that an enquiry (Ex.D1) was conducted and dissenting note (Ex.D2) at page No.52 of the Enquiry File was passed by the Superintendent RSA No.4102 of 2000 [ 4 ] of Police on 24.2.1994. It is not denied that a show cause notice was also issued to the appellant. Issuing show cause notice impliedly indicates that the competent authority did not agree with the findings in the enquiry. However, the Enquiry Officer found the appellant guilty on the following charges:- (1) It was the duty of the appellant to call back Paramjit Singh, but he did not do so and (2) that if Paramjit Singh did not appear before him, then he was to bring this fact to the notice of the higher authorities. While examining the aforesaid allegations as found proved by the Enquiry Officer and after complying with the procedure as per the law, the Competent Authority was not in any way wrong in passing the order of penalty of forfeiture of one year service temporarily. Thus, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. May 19, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE