R.S.A.No. 4962 of 1999 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 4962 of 1999 Date of decision: 25.2.2011 Hitpal Singh ......Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.D.S.Patwalia, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Satish Bhanot, Addl.A.G. Punjab. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration challenging his order of termination of service dated 6.7.1993. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that he was serving the police department since long and had been awarded commendation certificate. On 21.10.1991, plaintiff fell ill and the doctor advised him to take rest. However, the entry qua arrival of the plaintiff on duty on 28.10.1991 could not be got effect by the plaintiff. The plaintiff was again advised rest and could not join his R.S.A.No. 4962 of 1999 2 duty up to 18.4.1992. A show cause notice was served on the plaintiff qua his absence. The plaintiff submitted his reply but without considering the same, he was placed under suspension. Vide order dated 4.5.1993, plaintiff was reinstated in service and his suspension period was ordered to be treated as leave without pay. However, vide order dated 6.7.1993, services of the plaintiff were terminated on the ground that he had remained absent from service. Defendants, in their written statement, averred that the plaintiff had joined as a Constable at Jalandhar on 29.4.1986. Plaintiff was a habitual absentee. One year approved service of the plaintiff was forfeited vide order dated 20.7.1990 as plaintiff had remained absent from duty for 23 days, 21 hours and 25 minutes. Three years approved service of the plaintiff was forfeited with permanent effect vide letter dated 4.5.1993 as the plaintiff had remained absent from duty for 163 days and 1 hour. It was further averred that plaintiff had absented from duty on 27.4.1992 and joined back on 25.5.1992. A departmental enquiry was ordered to be held against the plaintiff. Letters were issued to the plaintiff on 24.8.1992 and 27.8.1992 to join the enquiry proceedings. However, it was reported by the M.H.C. of the police line vide report dated 15.8.1992 that the plaintiff had again absented from duty. The plaintiff did not join the enquiry proceedings and the enquiry officer submitted his report dated 25.10.1992. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declzaration as prayed for? OPP. R.S.A.No. 4962 of 1999 3 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is pre-mature under Rule 16.23 of PPR ? OPD 4.Whether no legal and valid notice U/S 80CPC was issued ? OPD 5. Relief.” The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 19.2.1997. Aggrieved by the same, defendants preferred an appeal and the same was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 17.12.1998 passed by Additional District Judge, Jalandhar. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. The plaintiff was working as a Constable with the defendants. Since the plaintiff was a member of a disciplined force, the alleged mis-conduct of absence from duty becomes more serious. 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 R.S.A.No. 4962 of 1999 4 merits of the case. In case, the finding of the Inquiry Officer is based on some evidence, then the Court cannot reappreicate the evidence 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 defect 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 been caused to him on account of the said defect. It has been held in Bank of India and another vs. Degala Suryanarayana, J.T. 1999 (4) Supreme Court 489 that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to the departmental proceedings. 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. The Court cannot embark upon reappreciating the evidence or weigh the same like an Appellate Authority. The finding recorded by the disciplinary authority was immune from interference within the limited scope of power of judicial review applicable to the Court. The plaintiff was admittedly re-instated during the pendency of the enquiry proceedings qua his absence from duty for 163 days, 12 hours and 10 minutes. 3 years approved service of the plaintiff was ordered to be forfeited. The said enquiry pertained to the absence of the plaintiff from 6.11.1991 to 17.4.1992. Plaintiff again remained absent from duty from 27.4.1992 to 25.5.1992. An enquiry was ordered to be conducted against the plaintiff. Notice was issued to the plaintiff to join the enquiry proceedings but the R.S.A.No. 4962 of 1999 5 plaintiff failed to join the enquiry proceedings. The enquiry officer, after examining the witnesses, gave the report dated 22.1.1993 that the plaintiff had remained absent from duty from 27.4.1992 to 25.5.1992 and hence, charges levelled against the plaintiff were proved. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the plaintiff along with a copy of the enquiry report. Plaintiff submitted his reply to the show cause notice and was also afforded personal hearing on 1.7.1993. The punishing authority agreed with the enquiry report and ordered that the plaintiff be dismissed from service. Thus, in this case there is no procedural error which would warrant interference by the civil Court. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE February 25, 2011 anita