C.R. No.704 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.704 of 2008 Date of Decision:- 12.03.2008 Ruda Ram ....Petitioner(s) through Ms.Preeti Khanna, Advocate vs. State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s) through Mr.R.S.Kundu, Addl. A.G., Haryana. *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** 1) Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? *** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed by the petitioner-plaintiff against the order dated 19.1.2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul whereby an appeal preferred by the State of Haryana and its Authorities against the order dated 28.8.2007(Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divsion), Narnaul has been accepted and as a consequence thereto, application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC moved by the petitioner has been dismissed. The facts may be noticed briefly. The petitioner having joined the Haryana Police as a Constable, earned various promotions from time to time and rose to the rank of Sub- Inspector. He was posted in that capacity at Narnaul when by an order dated 2.4.2007 passed by the Inspector General of Police, Gurgaon Range, Gurgaon, he was ordered to be retired compulsorily from service on attaining the age of 55 years. C.R. No.704 of 2008 -2- The petitioner has been compulsorily retired on the basis of a punishment order dated 1.6.2006 whereby, after holding a regular enquiry, he was found guilty of taking Rs.20,000/- as bribe from the complainant and was punished with stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. As regard to his honesty and integrity, in the annual confidential reports of the petitioner for the years 2004 and 2005, it was recorded that a departmental enquiry regarding taking of bribe by him is pending against him. There, however, appears to be no dispute that but for the above-stated punishment order, the petitioner's annual confidential reports of the preceding years are Good or Satisfactory. Aggrieved at the order of compulsory retirement, the petitioner has filed a civil suit for declaration in which the punishment order dated 1.6.2006 is also stated to have been impugned by him. In the said civil suit, the petitioner moved an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC to grant him ad-interim injunction. His application was allowed by the learned trial Court vide its order dated 28.8.2007 whereby “operation of the order under challenge bearing memo. No.6282/A.1 dated 2.4.2007” was stayed. The above-stated ad interim order came to be challenged by the State of Haryana before the Appellate Court, who vide its impugned order dated 19.1.2008 has accepted the appeal and set aside the above-mentioned order after observing that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the three golden principles i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss or injury. Hence, this revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the service record of the petitioner as well as the impugned orders. It is the cardinal principle of law that even if a prima facie case is made out, ad C.R. No.704 of 2008 -3- interim injunction cannot be granted by the Civil Court unless the remaining two ingredients, namely, 'balance of convenience' and 'irreparable loss and injury' are proved. In the present case, assuming that the petitioner has been illegally retired from service, the first Appellate Court appears to be right in observing that in the event of acceptance of his claim, the petitioner can be suitably compensated in monetary terms for the loss of salary etc. Also, in case of the petitioner's getting a promotion while in service, even that relief can be granted by directing to consider his claim for such promotion retrospectively and with consequential benefits. Otherwise also, it appears that the power to grant injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC does not clothe a Civil Court with power to stay operation of an order. This question, however, need not be gone into in the present revision petition. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that against the punishment order dated 1.6.2006, the petitioner had preferred an appeal which was, however, turned down by the Appellate Authority by passing a cryptic order. Still aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Director General of Police, Haryana. However, meanwhile, he having been retired compulsorily, has filed the subject suit in which the orders of Punishing as well as the Appellate Authority have also been impugned by him. In other words, it is contended that the revision petition preferred by him is still pending consideration before the Director General of Police, Haryana, namely, the Revisional Authority. This fact is not disputed by the learned State counsel also. C.R. No.704 of 2008 -4- It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has been compulsorily retired only on the basis of the punishment order dated 1.6.2006 against which his revision petition is pending consideration. In my considered view, the Revisional Authority need not await the final outcome of the civil suit and is obligated to decide the revision petition in accordance with law and within a reasonable period. Consequently and for the reasons aforestated, without interfering in the impugned order dated 19.1.2008 passed by the learned Appellate Court, this revision petition is disposed of with a direction to the Revisional Authority i.e. The Director General of Haryana Police, Haryana to dispose of the petitioner's pending revision petition by passing a speaking order and after affording an opportunity of personal hearing, if so desired by the petitioner, in accordance with law as early as possible and preferably within two months. Disposed of. Let a copy of this order be given Dasti to learned counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges. March 12, 2008 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE