RSA No.3332 of 1986 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3332 of 1986 Date of Decision : 15th December, 2011. Joginder Singh .....Appellant Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL Present: None for the appellant. Mr.Rajinder Mathur, Asstt. AG, Punjab. * * * Mohinder Pal, J.(Oral) This is regular second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 29.07.1986 passed by the learned lower appellate Court vide which appeal of the appellant-plaintiff-Joginder Singh against the judgment and decree of the trial Court has been dismissed. Necessary facts for disposal of this appeal are that the appellant was working as Constable in the District of Amritsar. On or about 14.09.1981, when the appellant was posted in Police Line, Amritsar, he was assigned the duty along with HC Charan Singh and Constable Surjit Singh for production of an under-trial prisoner namely Balkar Singh in different courts at Ropar, Ferozepur and Kapurthala. The said under-trial Balkar Singh after being produced in the Court at Ropar, was brought to the bus stand at Jalandhar and HC Charanjit Singh went to Police station Sadar, Jallandhar to enquire as to whether the under-trial could be accommodated in the police lock up at Jalandhar while the under-trial was in the custody of C.Surjit Singh and the RSA No.3332 of 1986 2 appellant. It is the case of the appellant that the under-trial offered laddoos to him and C.Surjit Singh and after eating the same, they became unconscious and consequently, the under-trial escaped. Later on, he was apprehended by HC Charanjit Singh with the help of Inspector Joginder Singh when the under-trial was making efforts to escape by boarding a bus for Amritsar. The appellant along with C.Surjit Singh were dealt with the departmental inquiry and found guilty of the charges framed against them. As a result thereof, both of them were awarded punishment forfeiture of two years approved service of the appellant while HC Charanjit Singh was censured vide order dated 10.12.1982 passed by the Superintendent of Police. Aggrieved from this order, the appellant approached the trial court and filed civil suit. After notice, the suit was contested by the defendant with the averments that the impugned order was perfectly legal and valid and binding upon the plaintiff. It was also alleged by the defendant that Police Rule 16.38 (1) (2) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (hereinafter referred to as "The Rules") were not applicable to the facts of the present case. The pleadings of the parties culminated into trial of the suit on the basis of the following issues: (1) Whether the impugned order dated 10.12.1982 is illegal and void? OPP. (2) Relief. The trial court decided the main issue No.1 against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. The First appellate Court further re-affirmed the RSA No.3332 of 1986 3 finding of the trial court and held that the department was justified in deciding upon departmental proceedings without reference to the District Magistrate as required by Rule 16.38 (1) (2) of the Rules. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree of first appellate Court, the appellant-Joginder Singh came in regular second appeal. No one has appeared on behalf of the appellant when the case was taken up for hearing. I have heard learned Govt. Pleader appearing on behalf of the State and also gone through the record. The main grounds of the appellant in appeal are that as per Police Rule 16.38 (1) (2) of the Rules, it was mandatory for the Superintendent of Police to get the sanction of the District Magistrate before proceeding against the appellant and as the required sanction was not obtained, so the impugned order whereby, two years service of the appellant has been forefeited, is illegal and void. This point has been adequately dealt by both the Courts below and have decided that it is prerogative of the departmental authorities as to what punishment is to be awarded to which official. There was no criminal proceedings qua the appellant. Otherwise also, sanction is required only in the police case. In the present case, the appellant has been proceeded against the departmental inquiry, therefore, I am of the view that the sanction before prosecution was not required in this case. It is further ground taken by the appellant that quantum of punishment imposed upon the appellant was discriminate and disproportionate. Even this point is without any basis. It is also prerogative of the departmental authority as to what punishment is to be awarded to which official. Normally, the Courts should not interfere in the departmental RSA No.3332 of 1986 4 proceedings as the Court is not to sit in judgment over the findings of the inquiry Officer and scope of interference of the Court is limited to the extent that it is to see that the principles of natural justice have been followed and proper procedure has been adopted during the course of inquiry. However, the Courts can interfere in the findings of the Inquiry Officer if there is flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice and the same are passed upon no evidence whatsoever. Both the Courts below have dealt with the factual and legal position governing the case of the plaintiff-appellant in great detail. In the circumstances, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by both the Courts below, which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present appeal. Resultantly, this appeal is hereby dismissed being without any merit. 15.12.2011. (MOHINDER PAL) Seema-II Judge RSA No.3332 of 1986 5 After notice, the suit was contested by the defendant with the averments that the impugned order was perfectly legal and valid and binding upon the plaintiff. It was also alleged by the defendant that Police Rule 16.38 (1) (2) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 were not applicable to the facts of the present case. The pleadings of the parties culminated into trial of the suit on the basis of the following issues: (1) Whether the impugned order dated 10.12.1982 is illegal and void? OPP. (2) Relief.