R.S.A.No. 3303 of 1997 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 3303 of 1997 (O&M) Date of decision: 03.11.2009 State of Punjab and others ......Appellants Versus Paramjit Singh .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. J.S.Sandhu,AAG, Punjab for the appellants. Mr.Aman Pal, Advocate, for the respondent. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff Paramjit Singh filed a suit for declaration and the same was dismissed by the Civil Judge, (Jr.Divn.), Gurdaspur vide judgment and decree dated 9.10.2006. In appeal, the said judgment and decree were set aside by Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur vide judgment and decree dated 22.5.1997 and the suit of the plaintiff was decreed. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the lower appellate Court in para Nos. 2 and 3 of its judgment, are as under:- “2. The facts of the case are that plaintiff filed suit for decree to the effect that the order No.469-74/ST dated R.S.A.No. 3303 of 1997 (O&M) 2 4.11.1994 of the defendant No.3 whereby the plaintiff has been dismissed from service and order No.4004/DR-5 dated 3.3.1995 where the defendant No.2 has upheld the same in appeal are illegal, null and void, unconstitutional, and have not binding on the service of the plaintiff with relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to take the plaintiff back in service by allowing all the service benefits like pay and allowances and seniority with 18% interest treating as if no such order of dismissal was passed against the plaintiff. It is pleaded that he was serving in Gurdaspur Punjab Police vide Const. No.386 and had joined Punjab Police on 2.4.1985. He was dealt with departmentally by the defendant No.3 on the false and baseless allegation of absence for a period of 104 days and 10 minute and as a result of it he was dismissed from service illegally, unlawfully, without giving opportunity to him to hear him and thus he has been condemned as unheard and no show cause notice was ever served upon him by the punishing authority before passing the penal order by the defendant No.3 and the penal order of dismissal has been passed by adding the previous misconduct for which the plaintiff has already been awarded punishment. Defendant No.2 has also upheld the same Penal order in appeal and has not given R.S.A.No. 3303 of 1997 (O&M) 3 due weightage to the actual facts and has not fully applied his mind to the right corner of the true facts and has not mentioned the grounds for not accepting the same. The punishment of dismissal has been imposed violating the Police Rules and is not proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct. 3. Defendants contested the suit and filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form. The plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit. They admitted the receipt of notice under Section 80 CPC and denied its legality and validity. On merits, they admitted joining of the plaintiff as constable in Punjab Police Department. They pleaded that plaintiff was dealt with departmentally on the allegations of absence for the period of 104 days and 10 minutes. After completion of regulation enquiry the plaintiff was given a show cause notice. The plaintiff filed its reply, after considering the same to the show cause notice legal and valid speaking order has been passed by the punishing authority vide which the plaintiff was dismissed from service. The appellate authority passed legal and valid order according to the provisions of law after applying his due mind. The punishment of dismissal has been imposed according to R.S.A.No. 3303 of 1997 (O&M) 4 the provisions of the Punjab Police Rules and is proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct. The plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present. Other pleadings of the plaints are denied.” On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to declaration prayed for? OPP 2. Whether suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit as alleged? OPD 4. Relief. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be allowed. The substantial question of law that arises in this case is “ whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge are perverse and against the settled legal position?” Admittedly, the plaintiff joined as a Constable on 2.4.1985. He was dismissed from service vide order dated 3.3.1995 as he had remained absent for 104 days. The scope of judicial review regarding interference with punishment order is very limited. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is R.S.A.No. 3303 of 1997 (O&M) 5 only to see the method/manner of awarding punishment. The Court is only concerned with the procedure adopted by the Punishing Authority. If the procedure adopted by the Punishing Authority is according to rules and natural justice, then no interference with the punishment order is called for. The Civil Court cannot go into the merits of the case. In case, the finding of the Inquiry Officer is based on some evidence, then the Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence or weigh the same like the Appellate Authority. So long as there is some evidence in support of the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained. Some defects in the inquiry has to be pointed out before the Civil Court can interfere with the punishment order. Further more, if defect is pointed out then the delinquent employee has to show as to what prejudice has caused to him on account of the said defect. The Court exercising jurisdiction of judicial review is not to interfere with the finding of the fact arrived at in a departmental inquiry excepting in a case of mala fide or perversity. The plaintiff was served with a chargesheet and thereafter, enquiry proceedings were conducted against the plaintiff. A perusal of the enquiry file reveals that the plaintiff had participated in the enquiry proceedings. A copy of the enquiry report was supplied to the plaintiff along with show cause notice and thereafter, the punishment order was passed by the competent authority. The reply submitted by the plaintiff to the show cause R.S.A.No. 3303 of 1997 (O&M) 6 notice was also considered by the punishing authority. The plaintiff was a member of disciplined force and the fact that he had remained absent by over staying the sanctioned leave is a gravest misconduct. Learned Additional District Judge has, in fact, noted down only the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant while setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court without giving any reason for setting aside the same. Lower Appellate Court was expected to give reason as to why the judgment and decree of the trial Court were being set aside. The present regular second appeal is pending in this Court since 1997 and hence, at this stage, it would not be appropriate to remand the case to the lower Appellate Court and to pass a well reasoned judgment in accordance with law. The judgment passed by the lower Appellate Court is, thus, illegal and is against the settled proposition of law and thus, perverse. Hence, the substantial question of law that arises in this appeal is answered accordingly. Consequently, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree passed by the lower Appellate Court are set aside and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court are upheld, whereby the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE November 03, 2009 anita