RSA No. 2151 of 1993 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2151 of 1993 Date of Decision: 01.12.09 The State of Punjab through the Collector Bathinda, District Bathinda. ... Appellant Versus Chamkaur Singh, Ex. Constable of Police No. 772, District Bathinda son of Bachan Singh resident of village and post office Smalsar, Tehsil Moga, District Faridkot. ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for the appellant. Mr. H.S. Gill, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vivek Goyal, Advocate, for the respondent. SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This appeal, is directed, against the judgment and decree, dated 02.01.89, rendered by the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Bathinda, vide which, it decreed the suit of the plaintiff, and, the judgement and decree, dated 27.05.93, rendered by the Court of Additional District Judge, Bathinda, vide which, it dismissed the appeal. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the plaintiff, joined the Punjab Police, as Constable, in the year 1981. An inquiry, was initiated, against him, in 1981, on the grounds that, at the time of recruitment, RSA No. 2151 of 1993 2 for the post of Constable, he produced forged Middle Standard Examination Certificate, whereas, he was only 6th standard pass. It was also alleged that, he did not disclose the fact, that he was previously convicted, for the offence, punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, in FIR No. 219 dated 14.07.66, Police Station Bagha Purana. On receipt of the enquiry report holding him guilty, he was dismissed from service, by the Superintendent of Police (Head Quarter), Bathinda, on 27.05.82. It was stated that proper procedure, was not followed, by the department, before passing the order impugned, as envisaged, under Rule 16.24 of the Punjab Police Rules. An appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed vide order dated 09.05.84. Revision petition filed by the plaintiff was also dismissed vide order dated 10.01.85. The defendant, was many a time asked, to treat the orders impugned, as illegal, null and void, but to no avail. Ultimately, a suit for declaration and consequential relief, was filed. 3. The defendant, put in appearance, and filed written statement, wherein, it took up various objections, and contested the suit. It was admitted that the plaintiff, was appointed, as Constable. It was stated that, during the course of inquiry, it was proved, that the plaintiff, had given false certificate, with regard to his passing of Middle Standard examination. It was further stated that, it was also proved, during the course of inquiry, that the plaintiff, was a previous convict. It was further stated that since the plaintiff, was held guilty by the inquiry officer, he was dismissed from service. The remaining RSA No. 2151 of 1993 3 averments, were denied, being wrong. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues, were struck:- (i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration prayed for? OPP (ii) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD (iii) Relief. 5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, decreed the suit of the plaintiff. 6. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was preferred, by the defendant/appellant, which was dismissed, by the Court of Additional District Judge, Bathinda, vide judgement and decree dated 27.05.93. 7. Still feeling dissatisfied, the instant Regular Second Appeal, has been filed by the defendant/appellant. 8. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 9. The following substantial questions of law arise, in this appeal, for the determination of this Court:- (i) Whether the Courts below, recorded perverse findings, contrary to law, that the mis-conduct, attributed to the plaintiff/respondent, for his dismissal from service, was not relatable, to the discharge of his duties, as a member of the Police force, and, as such, could not be said to be the gravest act of mis- conduct, as envisaged by Rule 16.2 of the RSA No. 2151 of 1993 4 Punjab Police Rules, 1934? (ii) Whether the Courts below, recorded perverse findings, on account of misreading and misappreciation of evidence, that the order impugned, on account of the aforesaid reason, were illegal and liable to be set aside? 10. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that the appellant, submitted a certificate of Middle Standard, at the time of his enrolment, as Constable. He further submitted that, the certificate, on verification, was found to be forged. He further submitted that, even the appellant, before his enrolment, as Constable, did not disclose, that he was convicted, for the offence, punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. He further submitted that, these acts, constituted the gravest acts of mis-conduct, before his (plaintiff's) enrolment, as Constable, and, as such, fell within the purview of Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934. He further submitted that, the plaintiff, was rightly dismissed, from service, for his gravest acts of mis-conduct, as envisaged, by the provisions of Rule 16.2 of the Rules ibid. He further submitted that the Courts below, recorded perverse findings that, since the mis-conduct, aforesaid, was not relatable to the discharge of official duties, he could not be dismissed from service, on account of the same. He further submitted that the judgements and decrees of the Courts below, being illegal, were liable to be set aside. 11. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent, submitted that, only the gravest acts of mis-conduct, relatable to the RSA No. 2151 of 1993 5 discharge of official duties, by a Police Constable, fell within the purview of Rule 16.2 of the Rules ibid, and, as such, the Courts below, were right, in coming to the conclusion that the acts, attributed to the respondent, prior to his enrolment, as Constable, did not fall within the purview of gravest acts of mis-conduct, in the discharge of his official duties, as envisaged, by Rule 16.2 of the Rules ibid. He further submitted that the Courts below, were right, in holding, that the plaintiff, could not be dismissed, from service, on the basis of mis- conduct, which related to the period, prior to his enrolment, in service. He further submitted that no qualification, was prescribed, for enrolment, as a Constable, and, as such, the question of presenting forged Middle Standard Examination Certificate, by the respondent, at the time of his enrolment, did not at all arise. He further submitted that even no evidence, was produced, that the plaintiff, was convicted, for the offence, punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, earlier to his enrolment, as a Constable. He further submitted that the judgements and decrees of the Courts below, being legal and valid, are liable to be upheld. 12. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter. In Madvan Nair Vs. Bhaskar Pillai (2005) 10, SCC, 533, Harjeet Singh Vs. Amrik Singh (2005) 12, SCC, 270, H.P. Pyarejan Vs. Dasappa, JT 2006(2), SC, 228, and Gurdev Kaur and RSA No. 2151 of 1993 6 others Vs. Kaki and others (JT 2006 (5) SC, 72, while interpreting the scope of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the principle of law, laid down, was that the High Court, has no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact, arrived at by the trial Court, and the first Appellate Court, even if, the same are grossly erroneous as the legislative intention was very clear that the legislature never wanted second appeal to become a “third trial on facts” or “one more dice in the gamble.” It was further held that the jurisdiction of the High Court in interfering with the judgements of the Courts below, is confined only to the hearing of substantial questions of law. The order of dismissal of the plaintiff/respondent, was passed, under Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, which is extracted, as under:- “16.2 Dismissal : (1) dismissal shall be awarded only for the gravest acts of misconduct or as the cumulative effect of continued misconduct providing incorrigibility and complete unfitness for Police service. In making such an award regard shall be had to the length of service of the offender and his claim to pension. (2) An enrolled Police Officer convicted and sentenced to imprisonment on a criminal charge shall be dismissed: Provided that a punishing authority may in an exceptional case involving manifestly extenuating circumstances for reasons to be recorded and with the prior approval of the next higher authority impose any punishment other than that of dismissal. RSA No. 2151 of 1993 7 Provided further that in case of conviction of an enrolled Police Officer is set aside in appeal or revision the officer empowered to appoint him review his case keeping in view the instructions issued by the Government from time to time in this behalf. (3) When a Police Officer is convicted judicially and dismissed, or dismissed as a result of departmental enquiry, in consequence of corrupt practices, the conviction and dismissal and its cause shall be published in the Police gazette. In other cases of dismissal when it is desired to ensure that the officer dismissed shall not be re-employed elsewhere, a full descriptive roll, with particulars of the punishments, shall be sent for publication in the Police gazette.” 13. A plain reading of the provisions of Rule 16.2 of the Rules ibid, clearly reveals, that a Police Official, can be dismissed only, if he has been found guilty of the gravest act of mis-conduct, during the performance of his duties. In the instant case, as stated above, he was not found to have committed the gravest act of mis-conduct, in the performance of his official duties. Both the allegations, referred to above, which formed the foundation of the order of dismissal, from service of the plaintiff, did not fall, within the ambit of Rule 16.2 of the Rules ibid. Even, no evidence, was produced by the appellant, that there was minimum qualification of Middle Standard, at the relevant time, for enrolment, as a Constable. Under Rule 12.4 of the Rules ibid, the only condition for recruitment of a Constable, was that, he should RSA No. 2151 of 1993 8 be a person of good character. From page 89 of the inquiry file, exhibit P1, it is evident, that the plaintiff/respondent, was reported, by the Station House Officer, Police Station Bagha Purana, on 22.06.71, being not a previous convict. This allegation was, thus, not proved. Thus both the allegations of mis-conduct, levelled against the plaintiff/respondent, entailing his dismissal from service, did not occur, during the performance of his official duties, as a Police Constable. The provisions of Rule 16.2 of the Rules ibid, were, thus, not attracted to this case. In case, the certificate, allegedly submitted by the plaintiff/respondent of Middle Standard Examination, was found to be forged, then a criminal case, could be got registered, against him, but, he could not be dismissed from service, as per the provisions of Rule 16.2 of the Rules ibid, for such a misconduct, relating to the period, prior to his enrolment. The Courts below, were, thus, right in holding, that the orders impugned, were illegal and liable to be set aside. The findings of the Courts below, in this regard, being correct, are affirmed. 14. The concurrent findings of fact, recorded by the Courts below, on the aforesaid points, being based, on the correct reading and due appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, do not suffer from any illegality or perversity, and warrant no interference, by this Court. The judgments and decrees of the Courts below, are, thus, liable to be upheld. 15. The substantial questions of law, depicted above, are answered, against the appellant. RSA No. 2151 of 1993 9 16. For the reasons recorded above, the instant Regular Second Appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed with costs. 01.12.2009 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE