Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ex. Constable Gurwinder Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 22 August, 2012
Author: A.N. Jindal
Bench: A.N. Jindal
RSA No. 3953 of 2010 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA No. 3953 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of decision: August 22, 2012
Ex. Constable Gurwinder Singh
...Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL
Present: Mr. SK Sharma, Advocate,
for the appellant.
A.N. JINDAL, J. (Oral)
CM No. 11761 C of 2010 For the reasons stated in the application, which is supported by the affidavit, delay of 278 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. RSA No. 3953 of 2010 This appeal has arisen out of the judgment dated 30.1.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, dismissing the appeal against the judgment dated 8.1.2004 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurdaspur, vide which suit of the plaintiff/appellant was dismissed.
The appellant was a constable in the Punjab Police Force on permanent basis. He was deployed as gunman with Shri Sukhjinder Singh Randhawa. He was issued carbine alongwith one magazine and 15 cartridges. He projected that the said carbine and ammunition were lost. A departmental inquiry was held. During the inquiry, it was held that he failed to keep the said carbine alongwith ammunition in his safe custody, therefore, he was responsible for the loss. Thereafter regular inquiry was RSA No. 3953 of 2010 2 held and ultimately he was dismissed from service.
On scrutiny of both the judgments, it transpires that the plaintiff was issued charge-sheet. A perusal of the inquiry file shows that proper opportunity was granted to him to defend himself at every stage of the inquiry. All the documents relied upon by the department were supplied to him. The plaintiff signed all the proceedings of the inquiry in token of his participation in the inquiry. Mere fact that he got lodged an FIR with regard to the theft of carbine and the ammunition is hardly sufficient to hold that the same were stolen. Consequently, he was responsible for the mis- appropriation of the carbine and the ammunition. It is not proved on record that the weapon was lost for no fault on his part. Both the courts below did not find any fault with the inquiry report. This court cannot sit in appeal over the inquiry proceedings and the quantum of penalty.
No substantial question of law arises for determination in this case.
No merits. Dismissed.
August 22, 2012 (A.N. JINDAL) prem JUDGE