RSA No.4459 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4459 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: JULY 25, 2011 Head Constable Jagtar Singh .....APPELLANT Versus State of Punjab and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL --- Present: Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. This is plaintiff's Regular Second Appeal against the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below, whereby the suit for declaration filed by him declaring the order of punishment of forfeiture of two years approved service permanently being illegal and arbitrary; with consequential relief for arrears of increments along with interest, has been dismissed. I have head the learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the impugned judgment. In this case, the plaintiff was working as Head Constable with the Punjab Police. In the year 1989 when he was posted in Police Post Balbehra, an information was given to him by Smt. Bimla that her son had died by consuming some poisonous substance, but the plaintiff did not take any action on the said information. Neither he got conducted post mortem examination of the dead body nor he made any entry of his departure and RSA No.4459 of 2009 -2- arrival in the DDR. He even did not record the statements of the persons giving information. Rather he obtained their signatures. On these allegations, he was charge-sheeted and inquiry was initiated in which he was found guilty and punished for the aforesaid penalty vide order dated 3.4.1991. His appeal against the said order was dismissed on 6.11.1991 and revision was dismissed on 20.5.1993. After more than nine years of those orders, he filed the instant suit on 30.9.2002 which was dismissed by the trial Court on merits as well as on the point of limitation. The decree of the trial Court was affirmed by the first Appellate Court. Learned counsel for the appellant raises the same four contentions which he had raised before the first Appellate Court, i.e., (i) that while holding inquiry against the plaintiff, the principles of natural justice and rules governing his service conditions were not followed; (ii) that the plaintiff was not supplied with the copies of the inquiry report earlier to show cause notice and his reply to the show cause notice was not considered by the punishing authority; (iii) that the punishing order passed by the authority is based on the comments of the Assistant in the office of the punishing authority, and that no Presenting Officer was appointed; and (iv) that the appellant was not competent to investigate and proceed in the complaint made by Smt. Bimla. Therefore, for the lapse on his part he cannot be punished. Regarding dismissal of his suit on the point of limitation, learned counsel argued that the plaintiff was having recurring cause of action, therefore, the Courts below were wrong while dismissing his suit on the point of limitation. RSA No.4459 of 2009 -3- After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I do not find any merit in either of the contentions raised by the learned counsel with regard to the personal hearing, supply of the inquiry report, following the rules governing his service conditions and the principles of natural justice, during the course of inquiry, as on these issues both the Courts below have recorded a pure finding of fact against the appellant. In paras 13 to 16 of the judgment, each and every argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant has been considered by the first Appellate Court and thereafter a finding of fact has been recorded. In my opinion, the judgment of the Courts below is based upon pure finding of fact and in the instant appeal no substantial question of law is arising for consideration of this Court. As far as the point of limitation is concerned, both the Courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration challenging the order of punishment after three years of the accrual of the cause of action. The contention of the appellant that he was having recurring cause of action, has rightly been rejected by both the Courts below. Thus, I do not find any illegality in the finding recorded by both the Courts below on issue No.2. In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. July 25, 2011 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) vkg JUDGE