Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab vs Sajan Dass, Constable on 10 April, 2024
Author: Suvir Sehgal
Bench: Suvir Sehgal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049547
2024:PHHC:049547
RSA-776-1994 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
212 RSA-776-1994
Date of decision:-10.04.2024
PUNJAB STATE ...APPELLANT
VERSUS
SURJAN DASS, CONSTABLE ...RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present: Mr. Amit Chaudhary, DAG, Punjab &
Mr. Anil Bansal, DAG, Punjab, for the appellant.
None for the respondent.
****
SUVIR SEHGAL, J.(ORAL)
1. Defendant is in second appeal before this Court challenging the
judgment and decree dated 21.08.1993 passed by learned Additional District
Judge, Jalandhar.
2. Facts, in brief, are that Surjan Dass, plaintiff-respondent was
working as a Constable. On 25.01.1984, on a surprise visit by Mukhtiar Singh,
DSP, plaintiff was found to be under the influence of liquor. Disciplinary
proceedings were initiated against him and on the basis of the report submitted
by the Enquiry Officer, show cause notice was issued. Plaintiff submitted his
reply and by order dated 22.10.1984, he was dismissed from service. Appeal
filed by him was dismissed on 06.04.1985. In revision, Inspector General of
Police modified the order and reduced the punishment to forfeiture of 05 years
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049547
2024:PHHC:049547
RSA-776-1994 -2-
approved service with permanent effect and correspondingly his pay was
reduced. Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration challenging the said orders as well
as claiming consequential reliefs.
3. Upon notice, suit was contested by the defendants by taking
various preliminary objections. It was submitted that there was a dereliction in
duty by the plaintiff and the punishment orders are legal and valid. Plaintiff
filed a replication controverting the stand taken by the defendant. On the basis
of the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed and after they led evidence,
Trial Court by judgment and decree dated 19.12.1991, dismissed the suit.
4. First appeal filed by the plaintiff was accepted, suit was decreed
and all the three orders were set aside. Plaintiff was found entitled to all the
emoluments. Defendants are in second appeal in the above backdrop.
5. I have heard the State counsel and considered his arguments
besides examining the record with his able assistance.
6. On the basis of the exhibited enquiry file, First Appellate Court
has come to the following conclusion:-
"In the enquiry file at page 17, it is clearly
recorded that Constable Kewal Singh witness of the
delinquent was cross-examined by the enquiry officer
himself, similarly, at page 19 of the enquiry officer, it is
recorded that Doctor Des Ram Sharna was cross-examined
at length by the enquiry officer. These two witnesses were
produced by the delinquent in his defence to show that as a
matter of fact that at the time of raid by D.S.P Mukhtiar
Singh, the delinquent had taken medicine which contained
alcholic contents. The role of the Inquiry officer in cross-
examining the witnesses of the delinquent is not justified
and is not in accordance with the natural justice. The
enquiry could not be said to have been conducted legally
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049547
2024:PHHC:049547
RSA-776-1994 -3-
and properly and consequently the enquiry report could not
be acted upon. The efforts of the enquiry officer in cross-
examining the witnesses of the delinquent were to show that
witnesses of the delinquent were not reliable. The enquiry
in those circumstances could not be said to be held with
open mind."
7. First Appellate Court has further recorded a finding that the
charge-sheet was incomplete inasmuch as it was not accompanied with the list
of witnesses. This defect has been conceded by the Government Pleader before
the learned Additional District Judge. In addition, First Appellate Court has
come to further conclusion that the plaintiff was never afforded an opportunity
of personal hearing before the passing of the impugned order. Still further, it
has been found that neither the copy of the enquiry report nor of the order
proposing punishment was supplied to the plaintiff-respondent. State counsel
has not been able to refer to any material to the contrary. It is, therefore,
evident from the above that the entire enquiry proceedings were held in breach
of the established principles of natural justice and the punishment orders passed
as a consequence thereof have been rightly set aside by the learned Additional
District Judge while accepting and decreeing the suit. This Court is, therefore,
of the view that no interference is called for in the judgment and decree passed
by the First Appellate Court.
8. Finding no merit in the appeal, it is hereby dismissed with no
order as to costs.
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
10.04.2024 (SUVIR SEHGAL)
sheetal JUDGE
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
