RSA No.3823 of 2006 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3823 of 2006 Date of Decision: 3.9.2009 Lakhbir Singh ......Appellant Versus The State of Punjab and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 1. Whether Reporters of 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? Present: Shri S.S. Khaira, Advocate, for the appellant. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court, whereby suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff challenging the order of discharge dated 4.2.2007, was dismissed in appeal. The plaintiff-appellant was appointed as Special Police Officer (SPO) in the Punjab Police. Since he abstained from duties with effect from 11.1.1997, an order of discharge was passed on 4.2.1997. It is the said order, which was challenged by the plaintiff before the Civil Court. The learned trial Court decreed the suit holding that though the the Punjab Police Rules are not applicable to SPOs, but the Rules of natural justice are applicable and, therefore, the order of discharge passed is illegal. The said judgment and decree has been set aside by the learned first RSA No.3823 of 2006 (2) Appellate Court. The stand of the plaintiff was that while playing Kabaddi on 11.1.1997, he felt pain in his waist and then remained under treatment for 24 days and that when he reported for duty on 4.2.1997, he was not permitted to join. At that time, his arm was fractured while playing Kabaddi. The learned first Appellate Court has found that no evidence of treatment of disease has been brought on record. The story of treatment has been found to be concocted one. The learned first Appellate Court has also noticed that one of the conditions of recruitment is that the appointment of the plaintiff would be on daily wages and if the work and conduct is not found to be satisfactory, then the plaintiff can be discharged at any time without issuing any notice. Division Benches of this Court in Parveen Kumar v. State of Punjab, 2001(2) SCT 527, Balour Singh v. State of Punjab, 2000(4) SCT 223 and Raminder Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2003(2) PLR 107, have examined the rights of the SPOs, in the context of initiation of departmental proceedings against them. It has been held that SPO is a daily wager and therefore, the procedure prescribed for initiation of disciplinary proceedings is not applicable to such officer. In Raminder Singh's case (supra), it has been held that the procedure for disciplinary proceedings would be applicable only when the SPOs are enrolled as constables. It has been held to the following effect:- "There is no dispute with the proposition of law that a public servant cannot be dismissed or removed from service as a measure of punishment without holding a due and proper enquiry. A public servant can only be dismissed or removed by way of punishment after complying with rules of RSA No.3823 of 2006 (3) natural justice. However, in the present case the petitioner could not claim the status of a Constable as he was never absorved as such. The provisions of Punjab Police Rules would become applicable only after absorption of the petitioner as a Constable......." In view of the aforesaid judgments, the finding upholding the order of discharge for the reason that the plaintiff has abstained from duties for a long period of 24 days, cannot be said to be suffering from any patent illegality or irregularity, which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present second appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 03-09-2009 ds