Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balwant Singh vs State Of Punjab Etc on 9 April, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048090
RSA-2128-1999 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:048090 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(208) RSA-2128-1999 (O&M)
Date of Decision : April 09, 2024
Balwant Singh .. Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and another .. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Aayush Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. Rohit Ahuja, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)
1. In the present appeal, the challenge is to the judgment and
decree of the lower Appellate Court by which, the judgment and decree of
the trial Court vide order dated 30.03.1996 has been set aside and the suit
filed by the appellant-plaintiff has been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff argues that the
respondents had passed an order on 14.03.1993 discharging the appellant-
plaintiff from service under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff submits that the trial
Court keeping in view the evidence, which had come on record, rightly held
that as no enquiry was conducted against the appellant-plaintiff in respect of
the allegations of absence from duty and no opportunity of hearing was
given to the appellant-plaintiff before passing of the order dated 14.03.1993,
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048090
the order of discharging under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules was
bad. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff further submits that the said
finding has been set aside by the lower Appellate Court vide order dated
22.02.1999 only on the ground that the appellant-plaintiff had remained
absent from service for which, the State was within its jurisdiction to pass
an appropriate order against the appellant-plaintiff. Learned counsel for the
appellant-plaintiff further submits that once the allegation on the basis of
which the appellant-plaintiff has been discharged from service, is absence
from duty, which is a misconduct, the respondents were under an obligation
to hold the disciplinary proceedings to prove the said allegations alleged
against the appellant-plaintiff before discharging the appellant-plaintiff
from service.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that keeping in
view the work and conduct of the appellant-plaintiff from the date of
appointment, the authorities came to the conclusion that the appellant-
plaintiff is not likely to become efficient police officer hence, an appropriate
order simplicitor has been passed, which is required under Rule 12.21 of the
Punjab Police Rules hence, the order passed by the lower Appellate Court
dated 22.02.1999 is perfectly valid and legal and liable to be maintained.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
6. The only argument which has been raised by the learned
counsel for the appellant-plaintiff is that once the respondents had started
disciplinary proceedings against the appellant-plaintiff, the order simplicitor
under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules could not have been passed.
7. The said argument cannot be accepted for the reason that once
an employer has two fold options, the employer can take action under either
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048090
of the said options. Even if, the employer started the disciplinary
proceedings against the appellant-plaintiff but thereafter thought they did
not want to punish the appellant-plaintiff and an order simplicitor under
Rule 12.21 has been passed, no grievance can be raised by the appellant-
plaintiff.
8. The Courts are not to be an Appellate Authority over and above
the decision of the Government where the Government chooses to exercise
a particular option available within its jurisdiction. It is a conceded
position that within a period of three years of appointment, the respondents
had a right to form an opinion as to whether the appellant will become an
efficient police officer or not and pass appropriate order under Rule 12.21 of
the Punjab Police Rules.
9. In the present case, the order simplicitor has been passed
without punishing the appellant-plaintiff for any act done during the course
of his employment or even mentioning any misconduct in the impugned
order. That being so, the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court
needs no interference at the hands of this Court in the present regular
second appeal.
10. Even otherwise, in the present regular second appeal, the
appellant-plaintiff is not entitled to argue the case again and has to point out
the perversity in the judgment of the lower Appellate Court and learned
counsel for the appellant-plaintiff has not been able to point out any
perversity in the judgment of the lower Appellate Court hence, even
otherwise, no ground is made out for any interference by this Court in the
present appeal.
11. Dismissed.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048090
12. Any civil miscellaneous application pending if any, also stands
disposed of.
April 09, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
harsha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
