Mohammad Hiraman vs State Of Punjab Etc
2024 Latest Caselaw 7285 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Mohammad Hiraman vs State Of Punjab Etc on 5 April, 2024

Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi

Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi

                                       Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046676



RSA-2642-1999 (O&M)             -1-              2024:PHHC:046676

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH


205                                    RSA-2642-1999 (O&M)
                                       Date of Decision :05.04.2024


Mohammad Hiraman                                                ...Appellant


                                Versus



State of Punjab and another                                 ....Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

Present:    Mr. Sahil Soi, Advocate for
            Mr. S.P. Soi, Advocate for the appellant.

            Mr. Rohit Ahuja, DAG, Punjab.

                         ***

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

1. In the present appeal, challenge is to the judgment and decree

of the Courts below by which, the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff

challenging order dated 24.11.1993, by which, he was discharged from

service under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that impugned order

dated 24.11.1993, by which he was discharged from service is cryptic and

non-speaking as it does not give reason as to why the appellant-plaintiff has

been discharged from service under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules.

3. It may be noticed that keeping in view Rule-12.21 of the

Punjab Police Rules, in case authorities/department is of the opinion that an

officer is not likely to become an efficient police officer, he/she can be

discharged from service. In the present case, order simplicitor is being

1 of 2

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046676

RSA-2642-1999 (O&M) -2- 2024:PHHC:046676

termed as stigmatic, which is not permissible.

4. Even otherwise, in case allegations are mentioned against the

employee while passing order under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police, the

same will become stigmatic, which is not permissible.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that no

opportunity of hearing was given to the appellant before passing the

impugned order by the respondents.

6. No rule has been cited that before passing an order under Rule

12.21 of Punjab Police Rules, an opportunity of hearing is to be given. In

the absence of any rule cited or brought on record, said argument cannot be

accepted.

7. On being asked to point out any perversity in the judgment and

decree of the Courts below, learned counsel for the appellant has not been

able to point out any perversity in the evidence and facts which had come

on record. In the regular second appeal, only the perversity, if any, in the

judgment and decree of the Courts below is to be seen rather than allowing

the appellant to argue the case afresh.

8. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances recorded

hereinbefore, no ground for interference by this Court is made out and the

present regular second appeal is accordingly dismissed.

9. Civil miscellaneous application pending, if any is also disposed

of.

April 05, 2024                       (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
aarti                                          JUDGE
            Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
            Whether reportable :        Yes/No




                                       2 of 2