IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 3047 of 2007 Date of Decision : April 08, 2008 Constable Balbir Singh .....Appellant Versus The State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Shailendra Jain, Advocate for the appellant. T.P.S. MANN, J. Suit for declaration filed by the appellant was dismissed and so also his first appeal. He has, thereafter, filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Order for forfeiting five years’ approved service of the plaintiff with permanent effect passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur on 28.5.2001, which order was upheld in appeal by Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ferozepur Range, Ferozepur on 20.8.2001 was challenged by him by filing the suit on the ground that the enquiry had not been conducted by the defendants in accordance with the spirit of judgment dated 30.1.2001 passed by learned District Regular Second Appeal No. 3047 of 2007 - 2 - Judge, Ferozepur. Vide said judgment, the appeal of the plaintiff was partly allowed and the department was directed to consider his plea regarding his absence due to illness. If the plea of the employee was not found satisfactory then an Enquiry Officer was to be appointed afresh, who was to give fresh charge-sheet and record the evidence within three months from the start of the enquiry. The punishing authority had then to pass the order either of dropping the matter or starting the enquiry by 1.3.2001. If the Enquiry Officer did not complete the enquiry within aforementioned three months, the proceedings were to be dropped by the department and the judgment and decree passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ferozepur decreeing his suit to be restored. It is submitted that the enquiry was to be started by 1.3.2001 but the Enquiry Officer was appointed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur only on 25.4.2001. Also that before the starting of the enquiry, the department was to consider the plea of the plaintiff regarding his absence due to illness and to take a decision on the same before appointing another Enquiry Officer but the same was not done. It has come on the record that after the passing of the judgment dated 30.1.2001, the plea of the plaintiff was considered afresh by Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur regarding his absence due to illness and the same was found unsatisfactory. It cannot Regular Second Appeal No. 3047 of 2007 - 3 - be, thus, said that the plea of the plaintiff was not considered before appointment of another Enquiry Officer. Though the fresh enquiry was to start by 1.3.2001 but the Enquiry Officer was appointed only on 25.4.2001, yet that, by itself, is not sufficient to grant relief to the plaintiff-appellant as the enquiry was completed and final order thereafter passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur on 28.5.2001. The entire exercise of consideration of the plea of the plaintiff, appointment of the fresh Enquiry Officer, holding of the enquiry and passing of the final order was over within four months and, thus, as per the spirit of the judgment dated 30.1.2001 by learned District Judge, Ferozepur. Another argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that no Presenting Officer was appointed by the department and as and when it was required, it was the Enquiry Officer himself, who had been acting as Presenting Officer. The judgment and decree passed in favour of the plaintiff- appellant in the earlier suit was set aside in appeal by learned District Judge, Ferozepur on 30.1.2001. The department was directed to consider his plea regarding absence due to illness and, in case his plea was not found satisfactory, Enquiry Officer was to be appointed afresh and the punishing authority was then to pass an order. The plea of the plaintiff-appellant was duly considered and found to be unsatisfactory. Another Enquiry Officer was appointed and his conclusion was Regular Second Appeal No. 3047 of 2007 - 4 - accepted by Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur, as a result of which order was passed for forfeiting five years’ approved service with permanent effect. At no stage of the holding of the enquiry did the plaintiff ever object to the procedure being adopted by the Enquiry Officer or by the appointing authority, i.e. Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur. He cannot now turn around to point out any minor lapse of no consequence so as to seek a favourable verdict. In view of the above, no case is made out for interfering in the concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the learned lower Courts. No such substantial questions of law, as claimed by the appellant, arise for determination. The appeal is without any merit and resultantly, dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) APRIL 08, 2008 JUDGE satish Whether to be referred to the Reporters : YES / NO