Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab vs Lalmani H.Constable on 20 April, 2024
Author: Suvir Sehgal
Bench: Suvir Sehgal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053392
2024:PHHC:053392
RSA-1536-1998
-1-
103
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-1536-1998
Date of decision:-20.04.2024
The State of Punjab and others
...Appellants
Versus
Lal Mani, Head Constable
...Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present : Mr.Arjun Sheoran, DAG, Punjab and
Ms.Amrita Garg, AAG, Punjab.
None for the respondent.
****
SUVIR SEHGAL, J.(ORAL)
1. Defendants - appellants are in second appeal challenging
the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, whereby
suit of the plaintiff - respondent has been accepted.
2. Pleaded case of the plaintiff - respondent is that he was
working as a Head Constable with the Punjab Armed Police. On
08.01.1992, he proceeded on sanctioned leave for two days but could
not join back on time as his wife was unwell. On 14.02.1992, on the
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053392
2024:PHHC:053392
RSA-1536-1998
suspicion that he was discharging duty under the influence of liquor, he
was medically examined and placed under suspension. He went back to
his native village. Departmental proceedings were initiated against him
on the allegation of the absence from duty. A departmental inquiry was
conducted, and show-cause notice proposing punishment was issued,
which he challenged by filing a suit for declaration. Upon notice, suit
was contested by the defendants, inter alia, on the ground that it was
pre-mature. It was submitted that plaintiff had remained absent from
duty on two occasions, and on account of grave misconduct and
indiscipline, penal action was taken against him. Plaintiff filed
replication reasserting the stand taken in the plaint. Issues were framed
and after the parties led evidence, trial Court by judgment and decree
dated 24.07.1995 dismissed the suit. Appeal preferred by the plaintiff -
respondent was accepted by learned Additional District Judge, Patiala
and the punishment order dated 20.10.1992, Ex.P1, was set aside with
liberty to the defendants to pass a fresh order by taking into
consideration his absence period from 11.01.1992 to 19.01.1992. It is in
this background that the defendants are in appeal before this Court.
3. I have heard the State counsel and examined the record with
his able assistance.
4. The suit filed by the respondent was dismissed by the Trial
Court as it was found to be pre-mature. However, taking notice of the
fact that the punishment order has been passed during the pendency of
the suit, the First Appellate Court has held it to be maintainable. The
Court came to the conclusion that as the respondent had not only
challenged the show-cause notice but also had questioned the
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053392
2024:PHHC:053392
RSA-1536-1998
subsequent order of punishment, if any, likely to be passed. This Court
does not find any reason to disturb the finding recorded by the First
Appellate Court, as the impugned show-cause notice, Ex.P3, had
merged with the punishment order Ex.P1.
5. Charge levelled against the plaintiff - respondent was that
he had proceeded on unauthorized absence from 11.01.1992 to
19.01.1992 for a period of eight days and from 14.02.1992 to
15.03.1992 for a period of twenty days. The First Appellate Court was
of the view that as he was placed under suspension w.e.f. 14.02.1992, he
was not required to attend the office and it cannot be treated as an
absence from duty. Reliance has been placed by the First Appellate
Court upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ex.Head
Constable Munshi Ram Versus State of Haryana and others, 1991 (6)
SLR 296. This finding of the First Appellate Court, however, deserves
to be set aside.
6. Rule 16.21 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (for short "the
Rules") contains a provision regarding the status and treatment of officer
under suspension. It provides that a police officer, who is under
suspension is required to attend the roll-call and be available to the
authorities. Interpreting this Rule, Supreme Court in State of Punjab
Versus Dharam Singh, 1997 (2) SCC 550 has held that even if a
delinquent official is not being paid subsistence allowance, that does not
mean that he should absent himself from duty. A Division Bench of this
Court in State of Punjab Versus Constable Daljit Singh, 1998 (2)
S.C.T. 29 has held that this rule requires a Constable to remain present
in the police lines during suspension and to perform duties as may be
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053392
2024:PHHC:053392
RSA-1536-1998
assigned to him as well as attend parades. In Ex. Constable Jagan
Singh Versus Director General of Police, Haryana etc., 2009 (1)
S.C.T. 458, another Division Bench of this Court has held that the
judgment in Ex.Head Constable Munshi Ram's case (supra) cannot
hold the field in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dharam
Singh's case (supra). As the judgment upon which reliance has been
placed by the First Appellate Court is no longer good law, the findings
recorded by the First Appellate Court are liable to be reversed.
7. Still further, that finding of the First Appellate Court that
the punishment of forfeiture of two years approved service on
permanent basis is not provided for in the Rules and therefore it could
not have been imposed, does not call for any interference. After noticing
Rule 16.5 of the Rules, Supreme Court in Chamba Singh Versus State
of Punjab, (1997) 11 SCC 452 has held that there is no reference in the
rules to forfeiture of service with permanent effect.
8. While accepting the appeal of the plaintiff - respondent, the
First Appellate Court had set aside the punishment imposed upon him
and had directed the authorities to pass a fresh order taking into
consideration his absence from 11.01.1992 to 19.01.1992. This direction
deserves to be modified in view of the above discussion.
9. For the reasons given hereinabove, appellants are directed
to pass a fresh order, after hearing the parties by considering the period
of absence not only from 11.01.1992 to 19.01.1992, but also from
14.02.1992 to 05.03.1992. This exercise be carried out by the authorities
within a period of four months from the date of receipt of
communication of a copy of this order.
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053392
2024:PHHC:053392
RSA-1536-1998
10. With the above modification, appeal is disposed of.
11. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(SUVIR SEHGAL)
20.04.2024 JUDGE
Brij
Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
