Punjab-Haryana High Court
Umar Mohd vs Haryana State And Others on 1 August, 2012
Author: A.N. Jindal
Bench: A.N. Jindal
Regular Second Appeal No.1360 of 2009 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Regular Second Appeal No.1360 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision: 01.08.2012
Umar Mohd.
......Appellant
Versus
Haryana State and others
.......Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL
Present: Mr. Puneet Gupta, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. Ajay Gupta, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
*****
A.N. Jindal, J.
This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11.02.2009 passed by the District Judge, Gurgaon, dismissing the appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellant (hereinafter referred as 'the plaintiff') against the judgment dated 30.07.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurgaon, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for declaration.
Plaintiff-Umar Mohd., an ex-constable in Haryana Police was dismissed from service vide order dated 15.06.2005 passed by Superintendent of Police, Faridabad. Appeal against the said order was rejected on 24.03.2006, so as the revision. He has challenged all the aforesaid orders by way of a suit alleging that the charge-sheet against him was that one Bilal resident of village Ferozepur Namak had lodged a complaint against him that he (plaintiff) along with some other police officials had harassed the truck driver, beaten him and snatched Rs.1000/- from his pocket. At this, a departmental enquiry was held, wherein he was indicted. The plaintiff has submitted that no proper Regular Second Appeal No.1360 of 2009 (O&M) 2 compliance of the procedure was followed and he was not issued any show cause notice before imposing penalty upon him.
Upon notice, defendants-respondents (hereinafter referred as 'the defendants') submitted that the plaintiff was suspended on the charges of snatching while he was posted on PCR duty at Nuh. DSP, Palwal, after conducted checking had ordered a departmental enquiry. It has been further submitted that after providing proper opportunity of personal hearing, he was dismissed from service.
From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-
"1. Whether the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the subsequent orders passed by defendant No.2 on 15.06.2005 and order of rejection of appeal passed by defendant No.3 on 24.03.2006 and order of rejection of revision passed by defendant No.4 on 15.09.2006 are illegal, null and void. If, so, its effect? OPP
2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPP
3. Whether this Court has got no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? OPD
4. Relief."
Snatching of the amount and giving beatings to the truck drivers in an illegal manner by a police personnel is a very serious matter. So many persons are the sufferers at the hands of the police officials on duty at the 'nakas', crossings or other sensitive points. They are apprehended and pressed to part with their valuables by the police officials under the garb of duty. They instead of performing their duties of serving the public, harass the people and snatch their money. The enquiry Report (Ex.R3) and the punishment order (Ex.P1/R6) do not suffer from any illegality or perversity therein. After receipt of the enquiry report (Ex.R3), a show cause notice (Ex.R4) accompanied by copy of the enquiry report, was given to the plaintiff, who submitted his reply. After considering the same and affording him an opportunity of personal hearing, punishment order (Ex.R6) dismissing him from service was passed. Regular Second Appeal No.1360 of 2009 (O&M) 3 These facts have not been denied by the plaintiff. There is nothing to show that the enquiry report and the order of penalty suffer from any illegality.
There is nothing on record to infer that the plaintiff-appellant suffered any prejudice during enquiry or that there was violation of any procedural safeguards resulting in prejudice as provided in the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeals) Rules, 1952, applicable to Haryana. Therefore, enquiry proceedings cannot be said to be vitiated. It was observed in case Sadhu Singh Vs. Haryana State through the Secretary, State Trnsport and Transport Controller Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh and another, 2006 (1) PLR 109 (P&H), that it is settled that the Civil Court or the High Court cannot act as a Court of Appeal over and above the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, which have been duly accepted by the punishing authority as well as by the appellate authority.
As regards the argument that the allegations with which the plaintiff was charged do not amount to gravest act of misconduct, it may be observed that the case relates to beating and extortion of a public man by a Police constable, which certainly amounts to gravest act of misconduct.
In case Ranbir Singh Vs. The State of Haryana and others, 1999 (2) SLR 319 (P&H), a police constable had remained absent from duty without leave for about one year. After enquiry, he was dismissed from service. This Court in the aforesaid case, observed that absence of constable who belonged to disciplined police force amounted to a gravest mis-conduct, but keeping in view his 17 years service, instead of dismissal from service, an order of compulsory retirement was passed. In the instant case, the plaintiff had extorted money from a public person and given beatings to him, thus, does not deserve any leniency. However, in Ranbir Singh's case (supra), some leniency was shown for the reason that he was absent.
Regular Second Appeal No.1360 of 2009 (O&M) 4
Learned counsel for the plaintiff has raised a serious objection that while awarding such a penalty of dismissal, the service record of the plaintiff was not taken into consideration.
I have gone through the service record of the plaintiff. On perusal of the same, it transpires that even prior to 2003, he was suspended; an enquiry was held and he was ultimately awarded a punishment of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect vide office order No.83/6 in the year 1993. Thereafter, again his five annual increments were stopped with cumulative effect vide order dated 25.09.2000. Again on 28.11.2003, three annual increments with cumulative effect were stopped. As such, the previous record of the plaintiff also cannot be said to be up to the mark for extending some concession to him.
No substantial question of law arises for determination in this case.
No merits.
Dismissed.
(A.N.Jindal)
August 01, 2012 Judge
ajp