Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab And Others vs Roop Singh on 18 December, 2008
Author: Rajive Bhalla
Bench: Rajive Bhalla
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.1360 of 2000(O&M)
Date of Decision: 18.12.2008
State of Punjab and others .... Appellant
vs.
Roop Singh, Ex.-Constable .... Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajive Bhalla.
Present: Mr. H.S. Gill, DAG, Punjab for the appellants.
Mr. B.S. Baath, Advocate for the respondent.
****
Rajive Bhalla, J, (Oral) CM No.10426-C of 2008 Prayer in this application is for early hearing of the appeal. At the request of counsel for the parties, the appeal is taken up for hearing.
RSA No.1360 of 2000 The State of Punjab challenges judgments and decrees dated 24.04.1997 and 4.12.1999 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurdaspur and Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, decreeing the suit filed by the respondent and dismissing their appeal.
The respondent-plaintiff was discharged from the Police Department on 27.04.1993, Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (hereinafter referred to as Rules) for absence from duty. The respondent challenged this order by way of a civil suit, praying that as he was discharged for commission of an offence punishable under Rule 16.24 of the Rules, the Superintendent of Police had no jurisdiction to invoke the summary procedure prescribed under Rule 12.21 of the Rules to dismiss him from service. The appellants contested the suit by asserting that the respondent's absence from duty empowered the Superintendent of Police RSA No.1360 of 2000 -2- to invoke his power under Rule 12.21 of the Rules. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues:-
1. Whether the impugned order bearing No.5479-84 dated 27.03.1993 is illegal, null and void as alleged? OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file this suit? OPD.
3. Whether the notice served upon the defendants is not valid notice under Section 80 CPC? OPD.
4. Relief.
After considering the matter in its entirety, the trial court decreed the suit by holding that as the respondent was discharged for misconduct punishable under Rule 16.24 of the Rules, the appellants were statutorily obliged to serve a charge sheet, hold a regular enquiry and thereafter proceed to punish the respondent. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree, the State of Punjab filed an appeal. The first appellate court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the findings recorded by the trial court.
The question of law that arises for consideration is whether the Superintendent of Police could have dismissed the respondent by resorting to his summary power of dismissal/discharge available under Rule 12.21 of the Rules, or was required to follow the procedure prescribed by Rule 16.24 (i) of the Rules i.e., regular procedure procedure of a departmental enquiry.
I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments and decrees.
The controversy herein is squarely covered by judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Chander vs. State of Haryana 1995 (2) SCC 567; 2000(4) SCT 1049 Major Singh vs. State of Punjab; 2000(3) RSJ 736 Prithipal Singh vs. State of Punjab etc.; 2002(2) SCT 285 Ex. Constable Rajinder Singh vs. State of Haryana; 1999(3) SCC RSA No.1360 of 2000 -3- 60 Dipti Parkash Benerjee vs. Satyendera Nath Bose; 2003(1) SCT 1051 (SC) Mathew P. Thomas vs. Kerala State Civil Supply Corpn. Ltd. and others; 2005(1) SCT 106 Surinder Pal Kaur vs. State of Punjab and others followed by a decision of this Court in Regular Second Appeal No.2896 of 2002, decided on 20.12.2007 tilted as State of Punjab and others vs. Jatinder Kumar and Regular Second Appeal No.2184 of 2000 decided 23.10.2008 by this Court. The ratio that emerges from these judgments is that where the order of dismissal is founded upon allegations of misconduct, punishable by a regular departmental enquiry a Superintendent of Police shall not invoke his powers of summary discharge under Rule 12.21 of the Rules and would have to follow the procedure of a regular departmental enquiry prescribed under Rule 16.24 of the Rules.
Admittedly, the procedure prescribed under Rule 16.24 of the Rules has not been followed in the present case. The respondent has been discharged, by exercise of summary power under Rule 12.21 of the Rules, for absence from duty. Such a punishment could only be awarded by resorting to the procedure of a regular enquiry as prescribed under Rule 16.24 of the Rules.
The question of law has already been answered against the appellants, the judgment and decrees passed by the courts below are affirmed and the appeal is dismissed with liberty however, to the appellants to conduct an enquiry in accordance with the provisions of Rule 16.24 of the Rules. The enquiry, if any, shall be commenced and concluded within six months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order. No costs.
18.12.2008 (Rajive Bhalla) sk Judge