Man Singh vs State Of Haryana & Ors

3. Facts, in brief, giving rise to the filing of this appeal are that the appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant') was serving as Sub-Inspector in Police Department, Rohtak. In July 1996, the appellant was deputed as Incharge of the police party comprising of ASI Sucha Singh, HC Suraj Bhan and HC Vijay Pal for taking two Government vehicles bearing Nos. HR 22 0020 and HR 03A 7880 respectively from Chandigarh to Hyderabad (Andhra Pradesh) for repair and fitting of Jammers. HC Vijay Pal was driving one of the vehicles. He purchased 12 bottles of Indian-Made Foreign Liquor [IMFL] at Kota (Rajasthan) and concealed the consignment of the liquor in the dickey of the car without the knowledge and consent of the appellant. On checking of the vehicles by the Excise Staff of Adilabad in the State of Andhra Pradesh, 12 bottles of IMFL were recovered from the luggage boot of the car being driven by HC Vijay Pal, which gave rise to registration of a case PR No.470/95-96 dated 31.07.1996 against HC Vijay Pal for transporting liquor in violation of prohibitory orders of the State Government.

4. The Superintendent of Police, Sonepat, - respondent No.2 herein ordered a departmental inquiry against the appellant and HC Vijay Pal charging the appellant with improper control over his subordinates which amounts to dereliction of duties and for the lapses of indiscipline as Police Officer. The Inquiry Officer found the appellant guilty of the charge on the basis of summary of allegations and submitted his report to the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2, on receipt of the inquiry report, issued show-cause notice dated 18.03.1997 to the appellant calling upon him to show-cause why penalty of dismissal from service be not imposed upon him. The appellant was directed to file his reply within 15 days from the receipt of the show-cause notice and in default thereof, final order of the proposed penalty of dismissal from the service would be passed against him. The appellant, accordingly, filed a detailed reply to the show-cause notice denying the allegations of misconduct and dereliction of duties on his part. He submitted that he has unblemished service record to his credit and has never been found guilty of any acts of omissions and commissions in discharging his duties during his long service career of about 34 years in the Police Department of the State.

7. The appellant preferred Revision Petition before the Director General of Police, Haryana respondent No.4 herein, which came to be rejected by an order dated 15.06.2001.

10. Being aggrieved against and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the trial court, the appellant carried the matter in appeal. The learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat, dismissed the said appeal on 01.09.2005.

13. We have heard Shri Kamal Mohan Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant, and Shri Arvind Kumar Gupta, Additional Advocate General for the respondents and perused the entire material placed on record. The facts narrated hereinabove are not in dispute to the extent that the appellant on 25.07.1996 was deputed as Incharge of police party comprising ASI Sucha Singh, HC Vijay Pal and HC Suraj Bhan to get technical repairs of two cars of the Government of Haryana at Hyderabad. On 31.07.1996 during the checking of the vehicles in the jurisdiction of District Adilabad (A.P.) by the Excise Staff of the Government of Andhra Pradesh, 12 bottles of liquor were found in the staff car No. HR 22 0020 which, at the relevant time, was being driven by HC Vijay Pal, against whom a criminal case was registered by the Police in District Adilabad. The appellant and HC Vijay Pal were also dealt with in departmental proceedings initiated against them under the Punjab Police Rules. The charge against the appellant was that the appellant did not exercise proper control upon HC Vijay Pal, driver of the official vehicle, when HC Vijay Pal was apprehended by the Excise Staff of Andhra Pradesh for concealing 12 bottles of liquor in the dickey of the official vehicle of the State of Haryana. In the departmental proceedings, the Inquiry Officer held the appellant as well as HC Vijay Pal guilty of misconduct, indiscipline and dereliction of duties. The disciplinary authority, on consideration of the reply submitted by the appellant to the show-cause notice, imposed punishment of stoppage of two annual future increments with permanent effect upon the appellant. The appellate authority as well as the revisional authority both have concurred with the disciplinary authority and accordingly dismissed the appeal and revision respectively filed by the appellant. As noticed above, the trial court, the first Appellate Court and the High Court in Second Appeal have concurrently held that the Civil Court cannot sit in appeal over the departmental proceedings or an order of punishment passed by the punishing authority. The High Court dismissed the appeal of the appellant without framing the substantial questions of law which were raised in precise terms before it in the Memorandum of Appeal.

16. On reading the above-extracted judgment of the High Court, it becomes clear that the High Court has not framed the substantial questions of law as raised by the appellant before it in terms of proviso to Section 100, sub-section (5) of the Code of Civil Procedure and dismissed the Second Appeal in slip shot manner without assigning any independent reason.

18. In view of the factual backdrop and the above-stated statement of HC Vijay Pal, we are of the opinion that the respondents cannot be permitted to resort to selective treatment to the appellant and HC Vijay Pal, who was involved in criminal case besides departmental proceedings. HC Vijay Pal has been exonerated by the appellate authority mainly on the ground of his acquittal in the criminal case, whereas in departmental proceedings he has been found guilty by the disciplinary authority and was awarded punishment for serious misconduct committed by him as police personnel.

20. In the backdrop of the above-mentioned facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the order of the disciplinary authority imposing punishment upon the appellant for exhibiting slackness in the discharge of duties during his visit to Hyderabad when HC Vijay Pal was found involved in Excise offence, as also the orders of the appellate and revisional authorities confirming the said order are unfair, arbitrary, unreasonable, unjustified and also against the doctrine of equality. The High Court has failed to appreciate and consider the precise legal questions raised by the appellant before it and dismissed the Second Appeal by unreasoned judgment. The judgment of the High Court, therefore, confirming the judgments and decrees of the first appellate court and that of the trial court is not sustainable. The appellant deserves to be treated equally in the matter of departmental punishment initiated against him for the acts of omissions and commissions vis-`-vis HC Vijay Pal, the driver of the vehicle.

22. In the result, for the above-said reasons and discussions, the appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The judgment dated 20.03.2006 of the High Court in RSA No. 4272 of 2005 confirming the judgments and decrees of the courts below shall stand set aside. Consequently, Civil Suit No. 571/1 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonepat, is decreed in terms of the relief sought for.

23. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.