Punjab-Haryana High Court
Punjab State Etc vs Sh. Amar Chand on 26 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056823
2024:PHHC:056823
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-2213-1995 (O&M)
Reserved on : 19.04.2024
Pronounced on : 26.04.2024
The Punjab State and others .....Appellants
Versus
Amar Chand .....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present : Mr. Rajesh Sehgal, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
None for the respondent.
****
NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)
1. The instant regular second appeal has been filed by the
appellants/defendants impugning the judgment and decree dated
15.02.1993 passed by learned Sub Judge IIIrd Class, Jalandhar, whereby
a suit for declaration filed by the respondent/plaintiff was decreed and
the judgment and decree dated 25.04.1995, passed by learned Additional
District Judge, Jalandhar, whereby an appeal preferred by the
appellants/defendants against the judgment and decree dated
15.02.1993, was dismissed. Parties to the lis are hereinafter shall be
referred to by their original position in the suit.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for
declaration alleging that he joined the Punjab Armed Police, Jalandhar
Cantt as Constable on 12.12.1962 and promoted as Head Constable on
22.08.1978. In the month of January, 1988 he was posted as Incharge of
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056823
Security Guard in the Golf Ground in the P.A.P. Lines. On 29.01.1988, a
departmental enquiry was ordered to be conducted against him on the
allegations that on 27.01.1988, when Sh. Raj Kumar, Superintendent of
Police, Commandant 80th Battalion P.A.P. and Sh. I.M. Mal,
Superintendent of Police, Training, P.A.P. Jalandhar were still playing
tennis, the plaintiff left his duty point with other security guards and he
was accused of leaving his duty point and exposing the officers to
security risk. The inquiry officer prepared his report and held the
plaintiff guilty. Thereafter, on 19.12.1988, the Commandant 27th
Battalion P.A.P. Jalandhar issued a show cause notice to the plaintiff
proposing punishment of forfeiture of three years approved service with
permanent effect. The plaintiff filed a detailed reply to the show cause
notice, however, without considering the said reply, the Commandant
27th Battalion P.A.P. Jalandhar, vide order dated 25.01.1989 ordered the
forfeiture of one year's approved service of the plaintiff with permanent
effect. Aggrieved against the said order, the respondent/plaintiff filed an
appeal which was rejected by the Deputy Inspector General of Police,
P.A.P., Jalandhar, vide order dated 11.07.1989. The revision petition
filed by the plaintiff was also dismissed by the Deputy Inspector
General of Police, P.A.P., Jalandhar, vide order dated 20.11.1989. Since
the orders dated 25.01.1989 and 11.07.1989 were merged in the order
dated 20.11.1989, therefore, the plaintiff filed a suit challenging the
order dated 20.11.1989.
3. Upon notice, defendants appeared and filed written
statement by raising preliminary objection that present suit is not
maintainable in the present form and the plaintiff has no cause of action.
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056823
On merits, it has been stated that the enquiry was conducted according
to rules and no injustice has been caused to the plaintiff as the order
passed is legal and valid. Replication was filed by the plaintiff in which
the written statement was controverted. From the pleadings of the
parties, following issues were framed :-
1. Whether order dated 20.11.89, passed by the Inspector
General of Police, PAP, is void, illegal on the grounds
alleged in the plaint ? OPP
2. Whether order dated 25.01.1989 passed by the
Commandant is void, illegal, on the grounds mentioned
in the plaint ? OPP
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the declaration prayed
for ? OPP
4. Whether suit in the present form is not maintainable ?
OPD
5. Whether plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit ?
OPD
6. Whether notice served u/s 80 CPC on the defendants is
invalid ? OPD
7. Relief.
4. Both the parties were given due opportunities for leading
their respective evidence and learned trial Court after appreciating the
evidence, decreed the suit of the plaintiff, vide judgment and decree
dated 15.02.1993. Aggrieved against the said judgment, the defendants
filed an appeal which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated
25.04.1995 passed by learned lower appellate Court. The concluding
paras of the said judgment reads as under :-
"10. xx xx xx The close scrutiny of the above rule goes to
show that approved service for increment purpose can be
forfeited either permanently or temporarily but the above
rule does not provide forfeiture of approved service with
permanent effect. This forfeiture of approved service would
definitely effect the gratuity, pension and seniority and
other benefits which are accrued to the government
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056823
employee due to the length of services. It has been held by
our own High Court that no such penalty can be imposed
which does not exist in the Act. It has further been held that
Section 7 of the Police Act and Rule 16.1(2) of Punjab
Police Rules does not provide punishment of forfeiture of
approved service. If any authority is need on the above
point, reference be made to 1968 Service Law Reporter
519, Punjab State Versus Inder Sen Sharma and 1984(3)
S.L.R. 336, Ram Pat Versus Union of India.
11. In view of my above detailed discussion, I do not see
any merits in this appeal which is hereby dismissed, with
costs. Decree sheet be prepared and the file be consigned
to the record room. Lower Court's file be sent back at
once."
5. Aggrieved against the judgments and decree dated
15.02.1993, passed by learned trial Court as well as judgment and
decree dated 25.04.1995, passed by learned lower appellate Court, the
appellants/defendants have filed the instant appeal.
6. Learned State counsel representing the appellants submits
that judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are against the
law and facts on record. The Courts below have mis-interpreted Rule
16.5 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, which clearly provide forfeiture
of approved service permanently. He further submits that the judgments
and decrees passed by the Courts below are based on conjectures and
surmises. Therefore, the same are liable to be set aside.
7. None has caused appearance on behalf of the respondent
despite service.
8. I have heard learned State counsel representing the
appellants and perused the record.
9. The present appeal was admitted on 18.10.1995. However,
while admitting the appeal, no interim order was granted in favour of
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056823
the appellants-State of Punjab. The respondent has retired from service
on 30.11.2001, on attaining the age of superannuation. Admittedly in the
present case the punishment of forfeiture of one year's approved service
with permanent effect has been imposed upon the respondent/plaintiff
and the only point required to be considered is that as to whether
forfeiture of approved service with permanent effect is permissible or
not. Rules 16.5 of the Punjab Police Rules reads as under :-
"16.5 Stoppage of approved service for increment
increments or forfeiture
(1) The increment of a police officer on a time-scale
may be withheld as a punishment. The order must state
definitely the period for which the increment is withheld,
and whether the postponement shall have the effect of
postponing future increments. The detailed orders
regarding the grant and stoppage of increments are
contained in rule 13.2.
(2) Approved service for increment may be forfeited,
either temporarily or permanently, and such forfeiture may
entail either the deferment of an increment or increments
or a reduction in pay. The order must state whether the
forfeiture of approved service is to be permanent; or, if not,
the period for which it has been forfeited.
(3) Reinstatement on the expiry of a period fixed under
sub-rule (1) or Above shall be conditional upon good
conduct in the interval, but, if it is desired under this rule
not to reinstate an officer, a separate order shall be
recorded, after the officer concerned has been given
opportunity to show cause why his reinstatement should
not be deferred, and the period for which such order shall
have effect, shall be stated. Rules regarding the method of
recording punishments under this rule in seniority rolls are
contained in Chapter X."
10. Rule 16.5 of the Punjab Police Rules specified certain
kinds of punishment to be inflicted upon but nowhere lays down that
approved service of a police personnel with permanent effect can be
forfeited. Forfeiture of approved service with permanent effect could
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056823
not be imposed as this punishment has not been provided under the
Rules. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the judgment of this Court
in Harminder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others : 2014(1) S.C.T.
16, wherein it has been held as under :-
"6. After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court is of
the opinion that the matter is covered squarely against the
State. This Court in CWP No.9146 of 1994 titled
Constable Sarjinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab & others
decided on 03.10.2012, has already decided the said issue
and held that the forfeiture of approved service could not
be imposed as the punishment was not provided under the
Rules, while placing reliance upon Ram Pat Vs. Union of
India & others 1984 (3) SLR 756 & State of Punjab Vs.
Inder Sain Sharma 1968 SLR 519, relevant portion of the
said judgment reads as under:
"7. After hearing counsel for the parties and
perusing the record, this Court is of the view that the
impugned order cannot be justified. The petitioner
has placed on record judgment of the civil Court
decided on 24.04.1989 whereby the suit for
declaration of the petitioner was allowed. A perusal
of the said judgment go on to show that the civil
Court came to the conclusion that the penalty of
forfeiture of the approved service could not be
imposed as it is not provided under the Rules.
Reliance was also placed upon Ram Pat Vs. Union
of India & others 1984 (3) SLR 756 and State of
Punjab Vs. Inder Sain Sharma 1968 SLR 519 by
the Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Jalandhar.
xxx xxx xxx
10. Counsel for the petitioner has also placed
reliance upon Punjab State Vs. Joginder Singh
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056823
1993 (3) Service Cases Today 671 wherein also it
had been held that where the Rules did not provide
forfeiture of service, the same could not be done and
reliance was placed upon the judgment passed in the
case of Ram Pat (supra) to hold that the right to
gratuity, pension and seniority cannot be effected in
this manner."
11. Concurrent findings have been recorded by both the Courts
below and learned State counsel representing the appellants has failed to
show that the same are perverse or illegal or based on misreading, non-
reading or mis-appreciation of the material evidence on record.
12. No question of law, muchless substantial question of law
has been raised or arises for consideration in the present appeal. No
other point has been urged.
13. In view of the above, the present appeal, being devoid of
merit, is hereby dismissed.
14. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of
accordingly.
(NAMIT KUMAR)
26.04.2024 JUDGE
Kothiyal
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
7 of 7
