Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana vs Sant Lal on 18 April, 2024
Author: Suvir Sehgal
Bench: Suvir Sehgal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051900
RSA-3079-1994 (O&M) -1-
Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:051900
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
221
RSA-3079-1994 (O&M)
Date of Decision:18.04.2024
The Haryana State through Collector, Karnal
.... Appellant
Vs
Sant Lal
..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present: Mr. Sharad Aggarwal, DAG, Haryana
for the appellant.
Mr. Ranjit Saini, Advocate for the respondent.
***
SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (ORAL)
1. Defendant-appellant is in second appeal challenging the
concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the courts below.
2. Pleaded case of plaintiff-respondent, Sant Lal, who was
working as a Constable is that while he was placed under suspension,
he went on leave for 10 days on 06.04.1984 but reported back on
08.05.1984. He again proceeded on leave on 08.05.1984 and reported
back on 11.06.1984. For remaining absent from duty, he was
proceeded against departmentally and a chargesheet was served upon
him. On the basis of the inquiry report, vide order dated 12.09.1985,
punishment of stoppage of 10 increments with cumulative effect was
imposed. Appeal preferred by him was dismissed on 06.10.1986.
Challenging both the orders, he filed a suit for declaration.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051900
RSA-3079-1994 (O&M) -2-
3. Upon notice, suit was contested on merits. Plaintiff filed a
replication reasserting the stand taken in the plaint. Issues were
framed and after the parties led evidence, trial court by judgment
dated 30.10.1991 decreed the suit. Defendant remained unsuccessful
in the first appeal, which was declined on 20.07.1994. Challenging
both the judgments, the defendant-appellant is in second appeal before
this Court.
4. I have heard counsel for the parties and have considered
their respective submissions besides examining the record with their
able assistance.
5. The sole question to be determined is as to whether a police
official, who is under suspension, can be asked to attend the roll call
and to remain present in office? This issue is no longer res integra and
has been answered by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab Versus
Dharam Singh, 1997 (2) SCC 550. After noticing Rule 16.21 of the
Punjab Police Rules, 1934 which govern the service of the plaintiff-
respondent, Apex Court has held that even during the period of
suspension, a police officer is required to attend roll-call and be
available to the authorities. The Supreme Court has held that even in
case, subsistence allowance is not paid, it does not entitle him to
remain absent from duty.
6. A Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab versus
Constable Daljit Singh, 1998(2) SCT 29 has held that a Constable is
required to remain present in the lines during suspension and has to
attend the roll-call as also perform the duties as may be assigned to
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051900
RSA-3079-1994 (O&M) -3-
him. It has been clarified that in case a Constable does not abide by
the discipline of the force as contemplated under Rule 16.21, ibid, he
is liable to be treated as absent from duty.
7. Reliance placed by the First Appellate Court upon Ex.Head
Constable Munshi Ram Versus State of Haryana and others,
1991(6) SLR 296, is misplaced. It has been held by a Division Bench
of this Court in Ex-Constable Jagan Singh Versus Director General
of Police, Haryana etc., 2009(1) SCT 458 that Munshi Ram's case
cannot hold the field in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Dharam Singh's case (supra). It is therefore, evident from the above
that the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below, are
contrary to the settled position of law.
8. For the aforegoing reasons, appeal is allowed. Judgments
and decrees passed by both the courts below are set aside and the suit
filed by the plaintiff-respondent is dismissed through out with no
order as to costs.
18.04.2024 (SUVIR SEHGAL)
pooja saini JUDGE
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
