Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaswant Singh vs State Of Punjab on 15 December, 2023
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:161196
108 2023:PHHC:161196
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh
Regular Second Appeal No. 1208 of 1995
Date of Decision: 15.12.2023
Jaswant Singh
... Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Punjab
... Respondent(s)
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.
Present: Mr. Sudeep Mahajan and Ms. Saachi Mahajan, Advocates
for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Vikas Arora, Assistant Advocate General,
Punjab, for the respondent.
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
1. The Regular Second Appeal in the States of Punjab, Haryana
and Union Territory, Chandigarh is governed by Section 41 of the Punjab
Courts Act, 1918 and not by Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908, as held by a five Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Pankajakshi
(Dead) through LRs v. Chandrika and Others (2016) 6 SCC 157.
2. In this regular second appeal, the plaintiff assails the
correctness of the findings of facts arrived at by the First Appellate Court.
The trial Court decreed the plaintiff's suit whereas the First Appellate Court
has reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.
3. In order to comprehend the issue involved in the present case,
the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed. The appellant was
enrolled as a Constable in the Punjab Police on 14.11.1971. At the relevant
time, he was working as a Driver of an official vehicle. The appellant was
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:161196
2023:PHHC:161196
served with the charge sheet containing the following charges:-
i) On 19.11.1986, he, while accompanying a woman, went
to the Cold Store and demanded a room from the
employees working there.
ii) He remained absent from duty for a period of 24 days
w.e.f. 25.11.1986 to 19.12.1986.
iii) Despite repeated requests, he did not supply the log book
of the vehicle.
iv) On 25.12.1986, he visited the Police Post in a drunken
state and picked up a quarrel with the Incharge thereof.
4. Darshan Singh, the Reserved Inspector, was appointed as an
Inquiry Officer. Ultimately, the charges were proved against him and the
Disciplinary Authority dismissed him from the service. The plaintiff filed an
appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, which was also
dismissed.
5. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a civil suit which was decreed by
the trial court. However, the State of Punjab had filed the first appeal, which
was accepted.
6. The learned counsel representing the appellant contends that as
per Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules Volume II, the dismissal of an
employee is permissible on account of the gravest act of misconduct only.
Additionally, the official must also be found incorrigible, for his dismissal
from service, as it is the highest form of punishment.
7. This Court has considered the submissions of the learned
counsel representing the appellant. The gravest act of misconduct depends
upon the subjective satisfaction of the Disciplinary Authority. The Civil
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:161196
2023:PHHC:161196
Court is not expected to interfere unless the punishment awarded is
manifestly disproportionate with the misconduct. In this case, all the four
charges, as noticed above, were proved against the delinquent employee.
Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority came to a conclusion that the
appellant does not deserve to continue working in the police service as it
requires highest level of responsible employees. Both the Courts below
have not found =any error or violation of the rules while holding or
conducting the disciplinary inquiry.
8. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, no ground is made out to
interfere with the findings of facts arrived at by the First Appellate Court.
Hence, the present appeal is dismissed.
(Anil Kshetarpal)
Judge
December 15, 2023
"DK"
Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:161196
3 of 3
