Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ramesh Kumar vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 20 April, 2024
Author: Suvir Sehgal
Bench: Suvir Sehgal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053186
RSA-1434-2014 (O&M) -1-
Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:053186
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
105
RSA-1434-2014 (O&M)
Date of Decision:20.04.2024
RAMESH KUMAR
.... Appellant
Vs
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS
..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present: Mr. R.D. Bawa, Advocate with
Mr. Randhir Bawa, Advocate and
Mr. Samuel Gill, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Arjun Sheoran, DAG, Punjab and
Mr. Amrita Garg, AAG, Punjab.
***
SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (ORAL)
1. Plaintiff-appellant is in second appeal before this Court
challenging the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts
below.
2. Pleaded case of the plaintiff is that he was serving as a
Constable in the year 2003 and was posted for security duty at PRTC,
Jahankhelan. He remained admitted in a hospital as he suffered
injuries in an accident and could not report on duty. A show cause
notice was issued to him to which he replied and disciplinary
proceedings were initiated against him. On the basis of the inquiry
report, punishment was imposed upon him vide order dated
06.11.2003, which he assailed by filing a civil suit for declaration.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053186
RSA-1434-2014 (O&M) -2-
3. Upon notice, suit was contested by the defendants-
respondents by filing a written statement, wherein various preliminary
objections were taken. On merits, it was submitted that plaintiff
remained absent for a period of 46 days, 2 hours and 30 minutes
without getting leave sanctioned. A departmental inquiry was
conducted and after the charges were proved, penal action was taken.
It was further submitted that an appeal challenging punishment order
was rejected by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Border
Range, Amritsar, vide order dated 26.12.2003. Plaintiff filed
replication reiterating the averments of the plaint. On the basis of the
pleadings of the parties, issues were framed and after they led
evidence, trial Court by judgment and decree dated 10.04.2012,
dismissed the suit on merits as well as on limitation. In appeal filed by
the plaintiff, first appellate Court reversed the findings on the issue of
limitation and held that the suit was within time. However, the
judgment of the trial Court was upheld on merits by judgment dated
11.11.2013. Plaintiff is before this Court in the above background.
4. By making a reference to punishment order, counsel for the
appellant has contended that the plaintiff has been imposed
punishment of stoppage of two increments with permanent effect,
which is not provided in the Punjab Police Rules, 1934. State counsel
has supported the judgments of the courts below.
5. I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their
respective submissions as well as examined the record with their able
assistance.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053186
RSA-1434-2014 (O&M) -3-
6. Before proceeding further, it is imperative to examine the
orders passed by the disciplinary authorities. By order dated
06.11.2003. disciplinary authority has forfeited three years approved
service with permanent effect for purpose of grant of increment.
Departmental appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellant has been
dismissed by order dated 26.12.2003 and its relevant extract is
reproduced hereunder:-
"5. I have carefully gone through the appeal of
the appellant as well as other relevant record placed
before me to decide the appeal and found that the
appellant remained absent from duty without any
reasons or excuse. If he had met with an accident, he
could have got his leave sanctioned from the
appropriate authority through some of his family
member/relative but he did not do so. I have also
carefully perused his service record and found that he
is a habitual absentee. The appellant was also heard
by the undersigned.
6. From the circumstances enumerated above,
the only inference that can easily be drawn is that the
appellant absented himself from duty intentionally. He
has rightly been awarded the punishment of forfeiture
of his two years approved service on permanent basis
passed by the punishing authority and the order is
legal and valid. Therefore, the appeal of the appellant
is rejected being devoid of force."
7. Interpreting Rule 16.5 of the Punjab Police Rules, Supreme
Court in Chamba Singh Versus State of Punjab, (1997) 11 SCC 452,
has held that the punishment of forfeiture of service with permanent
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053186
RSA-1434-2014 (O&M) -4-
effect does not flow from the said rule and can have no bearing on the
qualifying service for the purpose of pension. The orders passed by
the authorities do not meet the mandate of the rules. Both the courts
below have dismissed the suit without adverting to the Punjab Police
Rules, 1934. Therefore, judgments and decrees under challenge
cannot be sustained.
8. As the punishment and appellate orders have been passed in
contravention to the Punjab Police Rules, they are accordingly, set
aside. This court is of the view that the matter deserves to be re-
determined keeping in view the interpretation of the rule by the
Supreme Court in Chamba Singh's case (supra). Accordingly, while
setting aside both the orders, the matter is remitted to the punishing
authority to pass a fresh order after hearing the parties and examining
the record. This exercise maybe carried out within a period of 4
months from the date of communication of copy of this order.
9. Impugned judgments and decrees are accordingly set aside
and appeal is disposed of.
20.04.2024 (SUVIR SEHGAL)
pooja saini JUDGE
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
