Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab vs Amar Singh on 12 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035721
-1-
RSA-2314 of 1993
2024:PHHC:035721
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-2314 of 1993
Date of decision: 12.03.2024
The State of Punjab and others
......Appellants
Versus
Amar Singh
......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: - Mr. Rajesh Sehgal, Addl. A.G., Punjab,
for the appellant.
Ms. Ramneeq Kaur, Advocate,
for the respondent.
NAMIT KUMAR, J.
1. This regular second appeal is directed against the
judgment and decree dated 28.08.1992 passed by the Court of learned
Sub Judge, Ist Class, Gurdaspur, whereby suit for declaration filed by
the plaintiff-respondent was decreed as well as against the judgment
and decree dated 27.04.1993 passed by the Court of learned District
Judge, Gurdaspur, whereby appeal filed by the defendants-appellants
against the judgment and decree dated 28.08.1992, has been dismissed.
2. For convenience sake, reference to parties is being made
as per their status in the civil suit. Shorn of unnecessary details, brief
facts of the case are that plaintiff, who was posted in CIA Staff,
Gurdaspur, along with CIA Staff and other officials was proceeded to
Pathankot in mini bus No.PAB-316, which was being driven by
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035721
RSA-2314 of 1993
2024:PHHC:035721
Constable Sharif Masih. On the way, 12 bottles of illicit liquor were
recovered from the possession of one Pawan Kumar son of Kharaiti Lal
and on the basis of ruqa sent by plaintiff, FIR No.98/89 under Section
61-1-14 of the Excise Act was registered against him. After leaving the
bottles at the house of Balkar Singh, Head Constable, police party
proceeded in mini bus to Gurdaspur. The driver, who was drunk, lost
control over the vehicle. As a result of which the vehicle met with an
accident causing damage to the Government vehicle. Consequently,
Deputy Inspector General of Police, Border Range, Amritsar, vide
order dated 30.10.1989 ordered to recover amount of Rs.10,750/- from
the plaintiff and Constable Sharif Masih in equal shares. Plaintiff filed
suit for declaration that order dated 30.10.1989 was illegal, ultravires,
unlawful, against the principles of natural justice and the rules. The
suit was decreed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated
28.08.1992 declaring the order dated 30.10.1989 illegal, restraining the
defendants from making any recovery from the plaintiff. Defendants
were also directed to repay the amount if deduction from the salary of
the plaintiff-respondent was made. Aggrieved against the judgment
and decree dated 28.08.1992 of the trial Court, defendants preferred
appeal, which has been dismissed by the lower appellate Court vide
judgment and decree dated 27.04.1993.
3. Learned State counsel contended that both the Courts
below erred in law in holding that order dated 30.10.1989 was passed
without following the procedure laid down in Rule 16 of the Punjab
Police Rules. The recovery of the amount was only for the repair of the
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035721
RSA-2314 of 1993
2024:PHHC:035721
vehicle damaged for which procedure is provided in Rule 5.4, which
has been duly followed and complied with. He further contended that
the Courts below have not rightly interpreted Rules 5.4 and 6.22 of the
Punjab Police Rules. He further contended that the judgments of both
the Courts below are based on conjectures and surmises, therefore,
same are liable to be set aside.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supported
the judgments of both the Courts below. He contended that for no fault
on the part of the respondent, recovery was imposed upon him by the
appellants vide order dated 30.10.1989, which has rightly been declared
illegal by both the Courts below.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
6. Perusal of the record shows that penalty of Rs.10,750/-
(Rs.5,000/- upon the plaintiff-respondent) was imposed without
holding any departmental enquiry, without giving any show-cause
notice to the plaintiff and without giving any opportunity of hearing to
the plaintiff. It is settled law that no one should be condemned
unheard. It is further clear from the record that respondent did not
cause any loss to the vehicle. He was sitting in the vehicle driven by
Sharif Masih. Thus, the order of recovery was passed without
following the due procedure as required under the law. The plea raised
by the appellants-defendants with regard to pendency of appeal filed by
the respondent-plaintiff cannot be countenanced with. However, none
of the parties has placed on record the outcome of the said appeal.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035721
RSA-2314 of 1993
2024:PHHC:035721
7. Moreover, Section 102 CPC provides that no second
appeal shall lie from any decree, when the subject-matter of the original
suit is for recovery of money not exceeding twenty-five thousand
rupees. Present appeal is pending since 1993 and no stay has been
granted by this Court against the impugned judgments and decrees of
the Courts below. Thus, impugned judgments/decrees must have been
executed by this time and even otherwise, in view of Section 102 CPC,
the present appeal is not maintainable.
8 Learned counsel for the appellants has failed to show that
the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse or
illegal or based on misreading, non-reading or mis-appreciation of the
material evidence on record.
9. No question of law, muchless substantial question of law
arises for consideration in the present appeal. No other point has been
urged.
10. In view of the above, present appeal is disposed of
accordingly.
11. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of
accordingly.
(NAMIT KUMAR)
12.03.2024 JUDGE
R.S.
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
