Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab vs Bhupinder Singh on 10 April, 2024
Author: Suvir Sehgal
Bench: Suvir Sehgal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049449
RSA-3784-2008 (O&M);
RSA-365-2010(O&M);
RSA-519-2010 (O&M); and
RSA-1297-2011(O&M)
2024:PHHC:049449
301 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(1) RSA-3784-2008 (O&M)
The Punjab State and others
...Appellants
Versus
Bhupinder Singh, Constable
...Respondent
(2) RSA-365-2010(O&M)
The State of Punjab and others
...Appellants
Versus
Inspector Jarnail Singh
...Respondent
(3) RSA-519-2010 (O&M)
The State of Punjab and others
...Appellants
Versus
Head Constable Satnam Singh (since deceased) through legal
representative
...Respondent
(4) RSA-1297-2011(O&M)
The Punjab State and others
...Appellants
Versus
Surinder Singh
...Respondent
1 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 20-04-2024 06:04:12 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049449
RSA-3784-2008 (O&M);
RSA-365-2010(O&M);
RSA-519-2010 (O&M); and
RSA-1297-2011(O&M)
2024:PHHC:049449
301 -2-
Date of decision:-10.04.2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present: Mr.Anil Bansal, DAG, Punjab
for the appellant (s) in all appeals.
Ms.Dhamanpreet Kaur, Advocate for
Mr.B.S. Bhalla, Advocate
for the respondent in RSA-3784-2008.
None for the respondent (s) in RSA-365-2010 and
RSA-519-2010.
Respondent proceeded against ex-parte vide
order dated 21.07.2011 in RSA-1297-2011.
****
SUVIR SEHGAL, J.(ORAL)
CM-1471-2010 in
RSA-519-2010 &
CM-1031-2010 in
RSA-365-2010
For the reasons given in the applications, they are allowed.
Delay in filing of the appeals is condoned.
MAIN APPEALS
1. This order shall dispose of all the four above-noted appeals as
they involve common questions of law and fact. For the sake of
convenience, factual position is being taken from RSA-3784-2008.
2. Defendants are in second appeal before this Court
challenging the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below.
3. Brief facts may be noticed. Plaintiff - Bhupinder Singh, who
was working as a Constable filed a civil suit pleading that disciplinary
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049449
RSA-3784-2008 (O&M);
RSA-365-2010(O&M);
RSA-519-2010 (O&M); and
RSA-1297-2011(O&M)
2024:PHHC:049449
301 -3-
proceedings were initiated against him on the allegation that he remained
absent from duty for about five months. A departmental inquiry was held
and on the basis of its findings, he was issued a show-cause notice, to
which he submitted a reply and by order dated 26.11.2002 punishment of
forfeiture of two years approved service with permanent effect for the
purpose of increment was imposed. Departmental appeal and revision
were rejected vide orders dated 05.07.2003 and 24.12.2003. Challenging
these orders, he filed a civil suit for declaration and consequential relief.
Upon notice, suit was contested by the defendants by filing a written
statement wherein it was submitted that the plaintiff remained absent
from duty from 01.10.2000 to 01.03.2001. Charges were proved in the
departmental inquiry. Although plaintiff had committed grave
misconduct, lenient view was taken and lighter punishment was imposed.
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed and after
they led evidence, the trial Court by judgment and decree dated
17.10.2006 decreed the suit. First appeal filed by the defendants was
rejected by the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar by judgment
dated 26.03.2008, resulting in the institution of the present appeal by the
defendants.
4. I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their
respective submissions as well as examined the record with their able
assistance.
5. The trial Court has placed reliance upon a judgment passed
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049449
RSA-3784-2008 (O&M);
RSA-365-2010(O&M);
RSA-519-2010 (O&M); and
RSA-1297-2011(O&M)
2024:PHHC:049449
301 -4-
by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Punjab State Versus Joginder
Singh, 1992 (3) SCT 671 while decreeing the suit. The judgment has
been set aside by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment passed in
CWP-19730-2004 titled as Ranjit Singh Versus State of Punjab and
others decided on 14.09.2006, wherein after noticing Rule 16.5 of Punjab
Police Rules, 1934, a Division Bench has held that it is open to the
punishing authority to forfeit approved service for the purpose of
increments. While rejecting the argument of the petitioner, the Division
Bench held as under:
"In view of the above, it is not possible for us to accept, that
the punishment imposed on the petitioner, does not flow from the
provisions of the 1934 Rules. It is, therefore, not possible for us to
accept the sole contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
While dismissing the instant writ petition, it will also be
appropriate for us to set aside the order rendered by this Court in
State of Punjab Vs. Joginder Singh, 1992(3) Service Cases Today,
671, wherein the relevant statutory provisions were not brought to
the notice of this Court when the matter was adjudicated. Ordered
accordingly."
6. From the above, it is clear that the punishment imposed upon
the plaintiff - respondent meets the mandate of the rules and the
judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below are based on
incorrect interpretation of the applicable rules.
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049449
RSA-3784-2008 (O&M);
RSA-365-2010(O&M);
RSA-519-2010 (O&M); and
RSA-1297-2011(O&M)
2024:PHHC:049449
301 -5-
7. As a result of the above discussion, the appeals are allowed.
Judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are set aside and the
suit filed by the plaintiff - respondent is dismissed throughout with no
order as to costs.
8. Miscellaneous application (s), if any, stand disposed of.
9. A photocopy of this order be placed on the connected
appeals.
10.04.2024 (SUVIR SEHGAL)
Brij JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
