RSA No.225/2011(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.225/2011(O&M) Date of decision: 13.12.2011. Sukhdev Singh ....................Appellant v. State of Punjab & Anr. .....................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh Present: Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Jaswant Singh.J.(Oral) Plaintiff/appellant is in regular second appeal against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby his suit for declaration has been dismissed by the Courts below. It is pleaded that plaintiff was appointed on 18.04.1992 as SPO and his services were terminated on 3.3.1993 on the ground that he was under matric. Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration claiming that he was entitled to the arrears of three years and two months stating the discharge order as illegal, null and void and against the principles of natural justice. It was alleged that at the time of his discharge the plaintiff had rendered 10-1/2 months of service and as such he could not be discharged under the Punjab Police Rules. It was also alleged RSA No.225/2011(O&M) 2 that before terminating his services the petitioner was not given opportunity of personal hearing. Upon notice defendants contested the suit by filing written statement and raised preliminary objections inter alia stating that plaintiff was a daily wage worker and as such no cause of action had accrued to him. On merits it was stated that plaintiff was absorbed as SPO on daily wages from Home Guard Volunteer w.e.f. 01.06.1992. It was further stated that work and conduct of the plaintiff was not satisfactory and as such he was discharged from the service alongwith other SPOs. On the pleadings of the parties issues were framed. Both the sides led evidence in support of their respective pleas. On the basis of oral as well as documentary evidence available on record the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/appellant which was further affirmed by the appellate Court. Hence the present revision petition. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that both the Courts below have erred in law in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff/appellant as discharge of the appellant from service was against the Punjab Police Rules. It has further been submitted that before discharging the petitioner from service no opportunity of hearing was given to him. It is thus contended that the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are liable to be set aside. RSA No.225/2011(O&M) 3 After hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant and perusing the record in my opinion no question of law much less substantial question of law arises in this appeal for determination. Both the Courts below have found that the petitioner along with some other officials whose work and conduct was not found satisfactory were discharged from their service as those officials were considered not liable to become good police officials. It has further been found by the Courts below that though plaintiff had pleaded that he was discharged from service on the ground that he was under Matric but at the same time one Sh. Ashok Kumar who was also under Matric was permitted to continue in service, yet the plaintiff/appellant had failed to adduce any evidence to that effect. The learned Courts below while dismissing the suit had also taken notice of Rule 12.21 of Punjab Police Rules which provides that a Constable who is not liable to become good police official can be discharged from service within two years without assigning any reason and as such order of discharge had been validly passed by the defendants/respondents. I am further in agreement with the findings of the Courts below that had the order of discharge been founded on allegation of misconduct then the same would have been construed to be passed by way of punishment, necessitating personal hearing. However, as noticed above the appellant/plaintiff (within 10-1/2 months of service) along with other officials has been discharged from service as their work and conduct was not found satisfactory. In my considered opinion in these RSA No.225/2011(O&M) 4 circumstances both the Courts below have rightly held that there was no necessity of any personal hearing. For the reasons stated above finding no merit in the appeal the same is hereby dismissed. Since the appeal has been dismissed on merits, no orders are being passed on the applications seeking condonation of delay of 2703 days in re-filing and seven days in filing the appeal. 13.12.2011 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge