Regular Second Appeal No.1847 of 1986. -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Regular Second Appeal No.1847 of 1986. Date of decision:30-1-2008. The State of Punjab. ...Appellant. Versus Balwinder Singh. ...Respondent. ... Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. C. Puri. ... Present; Mr. Jaspreet Singh Sandhu, AAG Punjab. None for the respondent. ... K. C. Puri, J. Judgment. Under challenge in this Regular Second Appeal is the judgment and decree passed by then Additional District Judge, Amritsar whereby the appeal filed by the respondent against the judgment and decree dated 17.5.1984 rendered by the then Sub Judge Ist Class, Amritsar was accepted. The background facts giving rise to this appeal essentially are as follows;- Regular Second Appeal No.1847 of 1986. -2- The plaintiff, respondent herein, filed a suit for a declaration that the order of Superintendent of Police, dated 25.1.1982 dismissing him from service and order of Inspector General of Police, Punjab, Chandigarh dated 22.2.1983 declining the revision petition were arbitrary, capricious, unconstitutional and thus ineffective. He was working as a Constable in the Police Department, Punjab, since 4.11.1966. He worked honestly and diligently. During the year 1980, when he was posted at Gurdaspur, an inquiry was conducted against him on the ground of absence from duty and consequently he was dismissed from service. It is further pleaded by him that the dismissal orders are illegal as he was not supplied the list of of the prosecution witnesses and the copies of the documents on which the prosecution relied during the inquiry. He was also not given any adequate opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and the inquiry was held in an arbitrary manner. He was not given full opportunity to lead his defence. Show cause notice was not personally served upon him. The suit was contested by the defendant through the Superintendent of Police. In the written statement, it was denied that the plaintiff was not given due opportunity of being heard. The inquiry had been conducted according to the Rules applicable to the plaintiff and no illegality had been committed. Some preliminary objections were also raised. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were Regular Second Appeal No.1847 of 1986. -3- framed by the trial Court:- 1.Whether the order dated 25.1.1982 dismissing the plaintiff from service and revision order dated 22.2.1983 are unconstitutional, arbitrary and inoperative against the right of the plaintiff for the grounds as mentioned in para No.3 o the plaint?OPP. 2.Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction?OPP. 3.Whether the suit as framed is not maintainable?OPP. 4.Whether the Civil Courts at Amritsar have got no jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPD. 5.Whether the plaintiff has served a proper and valid notice u/s 80 CPC before the institution of the suit?OPP. 6.Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of necessary parties?OPD. 7.Relief. The learned trial Court decided issue No.1 against the plaintiff. Issue Nos.2 to 6 were decided in favour of the plaintiff. As a result of said findings, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed with costs. Feeling aggrieved the plaintiff filed an appeal which was accepted by the Additional District Judge, Amritsar vide judgment and decree dated 1.2.1986. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed. Feeling dis-satisfied, the State of Punjab has filed the Regular Second Appeal No.1847 of 1986. -4- instant appeal. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. From the submissions made by the Assistant Advocate General, the following question of law is formulated;- “Whether compliance of Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules is mandatory and non-compliance of the same, vitiates the punishment?. The learned trial Court after appraisal of evidence on the file returned a finding that the inquiry was conducted against the plaintiff before awarding punishment. However, the first Appellate Court on re-appraisal of the evidence came to the conclusion that the impugned order is clearly violative of provisions of Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules and as such the appeal was accepted. The plaintiff-respondent remained absent from duty for 39 days and 14 hours as per impugned order. Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules lays down as under;- “Dismissal shall be awarded only for gravest acts of misconduct or as the cumulative effect of continued misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police service. In invoking such as award regard shall be had to the length of service of the offender and his claim to pension”. The learned first Appellate Court reached at the conclusion Regular Second Appeal No.1847 of 1986. -5- that the trial Court has not taken into consideration the length of service and has not reached at the conclusion that his absence constituted continued misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police duty. The petitioner joined the Police Department on 4.11.1966 and the impugned order was passed on 25.1.1982. The period of his service was not taken into account while awarding the punishment of dismissal from service. His previous conduct has not been appreciated while passing impugned order. So, I find no infirmity in the impugned judgment and decree of the learned first Appellate Court. The petitioner must have retired by now as he joined the service in the year 1966. So, it would be unfair to unsettle the matter after his retirement. Therefore, the question of law formulated above stands answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the appellant and it is held that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, non compliance of Rule 16.2 vitiates the punishment awarded to the plaintiff. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. However, since the respondent has not appeared, there is no order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared and the files of the Courts below be sent back after due compliance. January 30,2008. ( K. C. Puri ) Jaggi Judge