R.S.A. No. 3343 of 1987 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 3343 of 1987 Date of decision: 2-8-2010 Lakhwinder Singh ......... Appellant Vs Punjab State and others .........Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present: Mr. P.S.Goraya, Advocate, for the appellant Mr. P.C.Goyal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab HARBANS LAL, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment/decree dated 3.8.1987 passed by the court of learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur whereby he reversed the judgment/decree rendered by the court of learned Additional Senior Sub Judge, Gurdaspur who had decreed the suit to the effect that impugned order dated 14.2.1983 and affirmed by the appellate authority vide order dated 19.12.1983 forfeiting two years approved service of the plaintiff are illegal, null and void having no binding effect upon the plaintiff with consequential relief that he is entitled to all benefits of service towards pension, gratuity and promotion etc. with costs. The facts which led to the filing of the suit are that the plaintiff was appointed as a constable in Police Force by District Superintendent of Police, Gurdaspur in the year 1970. His approved service of two years was forfeited vide impugned order dated 14.2.1983 by Superintendent of Police R.S.A. No. 3343 of 1987 2 Headquaters, Gurdaspur. The plaintiff carried appeal to the appellate authority, who rejected the same on 19.12.1983. He has posed a challenge to the validity of these orders on the ground that no necessary document was furnished to him at the time of enquiry; that no material witnesses/documents were produced in enquiry to prove the charge of misconduct; that the impugned order has been passed by the authority lower in rank than the appointing authority as Superintendent of Police (Head quarters) was Additional Superintendent of Police, who was not vested with the powers of punishment. The defendants in their joint written statement while controverting the averments embodied in the plaint, have inter alia pleaded that the suit was not maintainable nor it was properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:- 1. Whether the order dated 14.2.83 is illegal?OPP 2. Whether the order dated 19.12.83 is illegal?OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 4. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction?OPD 5. Whether the notice is invalid?OPD 6. Relief After examining the evidence and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court decreed the suit as noticed at the outset. Feeling aggrieved therewith, Punjab State and others went up in R.S.A. No. 3343 of 1987 3 appeal, which was accepted by the court of learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff as noted hereinbefore. Being dissatisfied therewith, the plaintiff has preferred this appeal. The following substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal:- “Whether the punishment inflicted on the appellant is without jurisdiction and not proper under the rules?” I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. On behalf of the appellant, it has been sought to be argued by Mr. P.S. Goraya, Advocate, that the impugned order Ex.P-1 dated 14.2.1983 has been passed for forfeiture of two years approved service with permanent effect which is not in consonance with Punjab Police Rule 16.2 as this rule is absolutely silent about simpliciter forfeiture of approved service and thus the impugned order is illegal, null and void. To buttress this stance, he has sought to place reliance upon Punjab State Vs. Joginder Singh 1992(3) Service Cases Today 671 and Ram Pat Vs. Union of India and others 1984(3) Service Law Reporter 756. To tide over these submissions Mr. P.C.Goyal, learned Advocate General Punjab on behalf of the defendant- respondents maintained that Rule 16.2 of Punjab Police Rules contemplates the forfeiture of approved service of a police officer and that being so, the impugned order cannot be faulted with in any manner. This contention merits rejection for the discussion to follow hereunder:- Rule 16.2 of Punjab Police Rules and the Table appended R.S.A. No. 3343 of 1987 4 thereto in so far as is relevant for the decision of this cases reads as under:- “16.1 Authorized punishments.(1) xx xx xx xx xx (2) The departmental punishments mentioned in the second column of the subjoined table may be inflicted on officers of the various ranks shown in the heading Nos.3 to 6 by the officers named below each heading in each case, or by any officer of higher rank:- Sr. No . Departmental punishment Inspectors Sergeants, Sub Inspectors and Assistant Sub Inspectors Head Constables Constables 1 xx xx xx xx xx 2 xx xx xx xx xx 3 Stoppage of increment or forfeiture of approved service for increment Assistant Inspector General, Government Railway Police, Superintend ent of Police, Assistant Inspector General of Police (Traffic) Superintendents of Police. Also Deputy Superintendent (Administrative), Government Railway Police and (as regards Sub Inspectors and Assistant Sub Inspectors only), Deputy Superintendent incharge of Railway Police Sub Division and Officer-in-charge of the Police Recruits Training Centres, Amritsar Superintendent of Police, also Senior Assistant Superintendent of Police, Lahore, Deputy Superintendent (Administrative) Government Railway Police, Deputy Superintendent incharge of Railway Police Sub Division and Officer-in-Charge of the Police Recruits Training Amritsar Superintendent of Police, Deputy Superintendent (Administrative) Government Railway Police. Deputy Superintendent incharge of Railway Police Sub Divisions, Senior Assistant Superintendent of Police, Lahore. Officers- in-charge of Recruits Training Centres 4 xx xx xx xx xx It is crystal clear from the above table that approved service can be forfeited only for increment. This table is absolutely silent that the simpliciter order for forfeiture of service can be passed. To add further to it, this Rule no where says that approved service of a police personnel with permanent effect can be forfeited. In Joginder Singh's case (supra) this R.S.A. No. 3343 of 1987 5 High Court has held as under:- “Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules Specifies certain kinds of punishments to be inflicted but nowhere lays down that approved service of a police personnel with permanent effect can be forfeited. The defendants cannot take advantage from column No.3 of Rule 16.2 of the Rules wherein punishment of stoppage of increment or forfeiture of approved service for increment can be inflicted. The punishment of stoppage of increment or forfeiture of approved service for increment cannot be interpreted to mean that the approved service of a police official with permanent effect can be forfeited. Approved service for increment can be forfeited but not the approved service for a period of three years with permanent effect affecting the rights of a police constable for the purposes of gratuity, pension and seniority. The underlying object in not vesting the authorities, under the above mentioned provisions, with powers to forfeit approved service with permanent effect appears to be that an official should not suffer for all times to come in the matter of gratuity, pension and seniority, otherwise, there was no difficulty in making such a provision. In somewhat similar circumstances Delhi High Court in Ram Pat Vs. Union of India and Others, 1984(3) SLR 756 did not approve the action of the authorities by which the approved service of a police official for one year permanently entailing reduction in pay was forfeited.” R.S.A. No. 3343 of 1987 6 If the matter is examined in the backdrop of the afore extracted observations the impugned order cannot be sustained. In Nanjundaradhya Vs. Enquiry Authority 1985(3) Services Law Reporter 592 it has been held as under:- “There is no penalty, by way of forfeiting the past service, which is indicated as one of the penalties which could be imposed against a railway servant. Therefore, in exercise the power to impose a penalty the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority or the Revisional Authority have to select one or the other penalties specified in Rule 6. Forfeiture of past service not being one of the penalties prescribed under Rule 6, no such penalty could be imposed in a disciplinary proceeding.” Further in State of Punjab Vs. Inder Sain Sharma P.S.I. (Law Inspector) 1968 Service Law Reporters 519 the police officer was imposed penalty of stoppage of increment under Section 7 of the Pepsu Police Act which did not contain this penalty. It was held by this Court that no such penalty could be imposed as it did not exist in the Act. On viewing the matter in the light of the law laid down in these authorities, the impugned order cannot be sustained for the reason that the penalty imposed upon the plaintiff- appellant does not exist in Rule 16.2 of Punjab Police Rules under which the impugned order has been passed. Here in this case, the approved service of the plaintiff for two years has been forfeited. Rule 16.5 sub rule (2) reads as under:- “16.5. Stoppage of increments-or Forfeiture of approved R.S.A. No. 3343 of 1987 7 service for increment. The increment of a police officer on a time-scale may be withheld as a punishment. The order must state definitely the period for which the increment is withheld, and whether the postponement shall have the effect of postponing future increments. The detailed orders regarding the grant and stoppage of increments are contained in rule 13.2 (2)Approved service for increment may be forfeited, either temporarily or permanently, and such forfeiture may entail the deferment of an increment or increments or a reduction in pay. The order must state whether the forfeiture of approved service is to be permanent; or, if not the period for which it has been forfeited. (3) Reinstatement on the expiry of a period fixed under sub-rule (1) or (2) above shall be conditional upon good conduct in the interval, but, if it is desired under this rule not to reinstate an officer, a separate order shall be recorded after the officer concerned has been given opportunity to show cause why his reinstatement should not be deferred and the period for which such order shall have effect, shall be stated. Rules regarding the method of recording punishments under this rule in seniority rolls are contained in Chapter X.” It can be reasonably and legitimately culled out from the above rule that the punishing authority while passing the order shall state therein, whether the postponement shall have the effect of postponing future increments. At the cost of repetition, it deserves to be mentioned here that R.S.A. No. 3343 of 1987 8 the impugned order no where says so. Besides this, the forfeiture period with specific dates has not been mentioned in the order impugned. Hence the substantial question of law is decided in favour of the plaintiff-appellant and against the defendant-respondent. Before the learned trial Court, it was argued that “the impugned order dated 14.2.1983 was not passed by the competent authority as Shri Sital Dass was not the appointing authority. He was appointed as Additional Superintendent of Police by the Punjab Govt. Gazette Notification Ex.P-8 dated 31.1.1984. The learned trial Court held that “Merely because in the enquiry file, Additional S.P. has given himself the description as Superintendent of Police, does not suo moto vest with the powers of Administrative in respect of the service matters of the police officials. Therefore, the administrative authority in power of Sh. Sital Dass, Add. Superintendent of Police cannot be held equal to that of Senior Superintendent of Police.” The lower Appellate Court held that according to Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules, the Superintendent of Police or even the Deputy Superintendent of Police is competent to inflict punishment of stoppage of increment or forfeiture of approved service for increments. This view is correct in view of the State of Punjab Vs. Ram Sarup Constable 1985(2) Services Law Reporter 369 in which it has been held that “the order of dismissal passed by Additional Superintendent of Police who is not subordinate in rank to the Senior Superintendent of Police is proper.” As such, herein I do not agree with the above observations rendered by the learned trial Court. Consequently, the findings returned by the lower Appellate Court to the stated extent call for no interference. Be R.S.A. No. 3343 of 1987 9 that as it may, but the fact remains that the impugned order as noticed earlier is not in consonance with Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules. Consequently, it can not be sustained. No other material point has been urged or agitated before me by either counsel. As a sequel of the above discussion, this appeal is accepted restoring the operative part of the trial Court's judgment dated 10.11.1986. Of course, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs. (HARBANS LAL) JUDGE August 2, 2010 RSK NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes/No