Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab And Ors vs Retd. Lady Constable Milwant K on 20 April, 2024
Author: Suvir Sehgal
Bench: Suvir Sehgal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053363
2024:PHHC:053363
RSA-1935-1998 (O & M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
104 RSA-1935-1998 (O & M)
Date of decision:-20.04.2024
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS ...APPELLANTS
VERSUS
RETD. LADY CONSTABLE MILWANT KAUR ...RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present: Mr. Arjun Sheoran, DAG, Punjab &
Ms. Amrita Garg, AAG, Punjab, for the appellants.
Mr. A.K. Walia, Advocate &
Mr. Divyadeep Walia, Advocate for the respondent.
****
SUVIR SEHGAL, J.
1. Defendants-appellants are in second appeal challenging the
judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, whereby suit filed
by the plaintiff-respondent, has been accepted.
2. Pleaded case of the plaintiff-respondent, who was working as a
lady constable, is that she was served with a charge-sheet on the allegation
that she submitted an application for promotion directly to the Governor of
Haryana in violation of the service rules. A departmental enquiry was
conducted, in which, the charges against her, were proved. By order dated
15.01.1990, three years approved service was forfeited with permanent
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053363
2024:PHHC:053363
RSA-1935-1998 (O & M) -2-
effect. Departmental appeal filed by her, was dismissed on 23.04.1991.
Assailing both the orders, she filed a civil suit for declaration.
3. Upon notice, the suit was contested by the defendants, wherein
besides raising various preliminary objections, it was submitted that as the
plaintiff was a member of disciplined force, she had acted in violation of the
Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (for short "the Rules"). It was submitted that
sufficient opportunity was given to her to present her case and after
complying with the principles of natural justice, punitive action was taken.
Plaintiff filed a replication re-asserting the averments of the plaint. Issues
were framed on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and after they led
evidence, Trial Court by judgment and decree dated 12.04.1996, dismissed
the suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiff-respondent was accepted and
both the orders under challenge were declared as illegal and ultra vires.
4. In the above backdrop, defendants have approached the Court
by way of present appeal.
5. State counsel has urged that the First Appellate Court has erred
in interfering with the judgment of the Trial Court as the punishment
imposed upon the plaintiff was of stoppage of three increments, which was
provided for under the Rules. He submits that the punitive action was taken
against her after the charges were duly proved. On the other hand, Mr. Walia
has opposed the appeal by submitting that the punishment is not provided for
in the Rules. He has drawn strength from the judgment of the Supreme Court
in Chamba Singh Versus State of Punjab (1997) 11 SCC 452. Still further,
by relying upon Chatrapal Versus The State of Uttar Pradesh and another
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053363
2024:PHHC:053363
RSA-1935-1998 (O & M) -3-
2024 (1) SLJ 308, he has contended that sending a representation directly to
a superior cannot by itself amount to misconduct attracting a harsh
punishment order.
6. I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their
submissions besides examining the record with their able assistance.
7. At the outset, punishment order dated 15.01.1990 deserves to
be examined. A perusal thereof shows that although while serving a show
cause notice, it was proposed that five years of approved service be
forfeited, but after considering the response of the plaintiff-respondent, the
punishing authority forfeited three years service with permanent effect,
which will have an impact on her future annual increments. Appeal filed by
the plaintiff-respondent against this order was rejected, by the Deputy
Inspector General of Police, Patiala Range, by order dated 23.04.1991.
8. State counsel has attempted to justify the punishment order by
relying upon Rule 16.5 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934. This Rule came up
for interpretation before the Supreme Court in Chamba Singh's case
(supra). It was held that there is no reference in the Rule to forfeiture of
service. It is, therefore, clear that the punishment imposed upon the plaintiff-
respondent does not flow from the Rules. This Court, therefore, does not
find any infirmity in the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court.
However, after having recording a finding that the rule does not provide for
the punishment imposed, it was incumbent upon the Appellate Court to
remand the matter to the authorities for passing of a fresh order. This has,
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053363
2024:PHHC:053363
RSA-1935-1998 (O & M) -4-
however, not been done. The impugned judgment and decree, therefore,
deserves to be modified.
9. Accordingly, the judgment and decree under appeal is modified.
Matter is remitted to the punishing authority to pass a fresh order after
hearing the parties and considering the nature of allegations levelled against
the plaintiff-respondent as well as the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Chatrapal's case (supra). Punishing authority shall carry out the necessary
exercise within a period of four months from the date of communication of a
copy of this order.
10. Appeal is disposed of.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
20.04.2024 (SUVIR SEHGAL)
sheetal JUDGE
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
