Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajinder Prashad vs Haryana State on 15 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037951
1
RSA-2772 of 1998 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-2772 of 1998 (O&M)
Reserved on: 06.03.2024
Pronounced on: 15.03.2024
Rajinder Prashad
......Appellant
Versus
Haryana State
......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: - Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. Ravi Dutt Sharma, DAG, Haryana.
NAMIT KUMAR, J.
1. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the
judgment and decree dated 26.05.1998 passed by the Court of learned
Additional District Judge, Hisar, whereby appeal filed by the respondent-
State against the judgment and decree dated 04.12.1997 passed by the
Court of learned Additional Civil Judge, Hisar, has been accepted and
suit of the plaintiff-appellant has been dismissed.
2. For convenience sake, reference to parties is being made as
per their status in the civil suit. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff
filed a suit against the defendant-State seeking a decree for declaration
to the effect that orders dated 01.12.1993, 21.11.1994 and 05.09.1995
passed by Superintendent of Police, Hisar; DIG, Hisar Range, Hisar and
Director General of Police, Haryana, respectively are wholly illegal,
1 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037951
RSA-2772 of 1998 (O&M)
wanton, capricious, mala fide, arbitrary, discriminatory and against the
provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India and against
service conditions by which the plaintiff is governed and against the
Punishment and Appeal Rules, against principles of natural justice and
the same are not binding on the rights of the plaintiff and are liable to be
set aside. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that he is in police department,
Haryana since long and serving against a permanent post on regular basis
and he has been discharging his duties quite honestly, diligently and to
the entire satisfaction of the superiors. The plaintiff was dealt with
departmentally under the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 on the allegations
that he got his maternal uncle's son-Vinod Kumar recruited in Police
force by giving fictitious address of V. Karnoli, District Hisar. After the
plaintiff was dealt with departmentally under Punjab Police Rules, a
punishment of stoppage of five annual increments with cumulative effect
was awarded by the Superintendent of Police, Hisar vide order dated
01.12.1993. Feeling aggrieved from the aforesaid order dated
01.12.1993, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before DIG, Hisar range,
which was dismissed vide order dated 21.11.1994, without passing a
speaking order as well as without affording an opportunity of personal
hearing to the plaintiff. Then a revision petition was preferred which was
also dismissed vide order dated 05.09.1995. The aforesaid orders dated
01.12.1993, 21.11.1994 and 05.09.1995 passed by Superintendent of
Police, D.I.G. Hisar Range and Director General of Police, Haryana,
respectively are alleged as illegal, arbitrary, mala fide, discriminatory
and against the provisions of Punishment and Appeal Rules and the same
2 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037951
RSA-2772 of 1998 (O&M)
are not binding on the grounds that no sanction from the District
Magistrate as envisaged under Section 16.38 Punjab Police Rules was
taken before initiation of departmental enquiry against the plaintiff. The
alleged misconduct amounted to attempt of cheating and other allied
offence of criminal conspiracy etc. The Superintendent of Police could
not circumvent this mandatory provisions of law. It is also alleged that
report of enquiry officer and order of Superintendent of Police were
based on mere conjectures and surmises. The plaintiff was held guilty
and punished with a view to shield the real delinquents who are seniors.
The Enquiry Officer as well as Superintendent of Police have shifted the
blame on the plaintiff. The Superintendent of Police has ignored the
procedure followed in recruitment of persons in the Police force as
Constable. The Superintendent of Police, Hisar has not properly taken
into consideration the letters written by DIG Hisar range to Director
General of Police, Haryana, Chandigarh. The Enquiry Officer has placed
reliance on the report dated 07.02.1992 alleged to have been executed by
Vinod Kumar which as per plaintiff was manipulated after obtaining
signatures on blank papers by Sh. Manjit Singh D.S.P. after giving him
4 or 5 slaps and also after giving threat to his life. Vinod Kumar was not
cited as witness in the list of witnesses from the prosecution side and he
was produced as defence witness by the plaintiff. From the statement of
Vinod Kumar and other defence witnesses, it was proved beyond doubt
that the plaintiff was at Hisar on 11.01.1991 and he was present in the
office of D.I.G., Hisar and the plaintiff was thus not at all involved in
any manner in the recruitment of Sh. Vinod Kumar. It is further alleged
3 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037951
RSA-2772 of 1998 (O&M)
that no copy of complaint or report of preliminary enquiry was supplied
to the plaintiff. Neither copy of the enquiry report was given to the
plaintiff alongwith show-cause notice and thus, reasonable opportunity
of hearing was denied to the plaintiff. The Enquiry Officer has also
conducted inquiry proceedings against rules. No personal hearing was
given to the plaintiff. Notice u/s 80 CPC was also given and thereafter
the suit was instituted.
3. Defendant contested the suit on the ground of
maintainability, locus standi, estoppel, cause of action and it is pleaded
that the impugned orders are valid, correct and according to law and the
same are binding upon the plaintiff. It is also submitted that no
concurrence from District Magistrate under rule 16.38 of Punjab Police
Rules was required because the plaintiff has not committed any criminal
offence in connection with his official relation with the public. The
punishment awarded to the plaintiff was according to the facts. The
plaintiff wanted to take shield under letters dated 11.01.1993, and
29.05.1992. These letters are only opinion and are not based on any
inquiry. The plaintiff cannot take the benefit of these letters. Written and
signed statement of Vinod Kumar before DSP is containing real version.
The allegations of threat and beating and obtaining signatures on the
blank papers are denied. The charge-sheet was duly served to the
plaintiff and inquiry was correctly conducted and the punishing authority
after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the plaintiff has passed
the impugned orders. The appellate authority and revisional authority
4 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037951
RSA-2772 of 1998 (O&M)
have correctly passed the impugned orders and thus, the suit of the
plaintiff as such merits dismissal.
4. Replication controverting averments made in the written
statement was filed by the plaintiff.
5. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were
framed by learned trial Court:-
1. Whether the orders dated 1.12.93, 21.11.94 and
5.9.95 passed by Superintendent of Police, Hisar,
DIG, Hisar and Director General of Police,
Haryana, respectively, are wholly illegal, wanton,
capricious, mala fide, arbitrary and
discriminatory? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file
the present suit? OPD
3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present
form? OPD
4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the
present suit? OPD
5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the
present suit due to his own act and conduct? OPD
6. Relief.
6. The parties led their respective evidence. The Court of first
instance, after appreciating evidence on record decreed the suit filed by
the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 04.12.1997.
7. Feeling aggrieved against the said judgment and decree of
the trial Court, defendant-State preferred an appeal before the lower
appellate Court, which has been allowed vide judgment and decree dated
26.05.1998.
5 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037951
RSA-2772 of 1998 (O&M)
8. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the lower
appellate Court has wrongly reversed the well-reasoned findings of the
trial Court. He further contended that lower appellate Court failed to
notice that list of witnesses, list of documents, charge-sheet and inquiry
report were not supplied to the appellant, which amounts to denial of
reasonable opportunity of defence to the appellant. He further contended
that he has been denied the opportunity of filing reply to the show-cause
notice. He further contended that the judgment/decree of the lower
appellate Court is based on surmises and conjectures, therefore, same is
liable to be reversed.
9. Per contra, learned State counsel supported the judgment
and decree of the lower appellate Court and contended that the same is
perfectly valid and, therefore, present appeal is liable to be dismissed.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
11. Perusal of the record shows that plaintiff was served with
charge-sheet (ExD2) and statement of allegations (ExD3). Enquiry
Officer submitted his report, which was placed on record as Ex.D4 and
thereafter show-cause notice was issued to the plaintiff-appellant, to
which he submitted his reply (Ex.D6). It is also crystal clear from the
record that opportunity of personal hearing was given to the appellant.
Raghuraj Singh CRC, who appeared as DW1, categorically stated that
copy of report of Sh. Manjit Singh, D.S.P. 4th Batallion was given to the
appellant and appellant was also given the opportunity of personal
hearing. Perusal of record further shows that list of witnesses and
6 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037951
RSA-2772 of 1998 (O&M)
documents along with charge-sheet were also supplied to the appellant.
The appellate Court has rightly observed that on the one hand appellant
alleged that Vinod Kumar was not cited as witness, but on the other hand,
it had been argued that list of witnesses was not supplied, thus, both the
statements are self-contradictory. It is not discernible from the record
whether the charge-sheet was issued on the basis of any complaint. As
and when the respondent came to know about the cheating, they
immediately brought to the notice of the authorities and thereupon fact
finding enquiry was conducted and charge-sheet was issued. Raghuraj
Singh DW-1 has categorically stated in his cross-examination that there
is no complaint on the record of the file on the basis of which charge-
sheet was issued and, therefore, copy of complaint was not supplied to
the appellant. Proper procedure was followed by the department to hold
the appellant guilty. There are serious allegations against the appellant
that he in conspiracy with his relative, namely, Vinod Kumar made
another person to appear for examination for selection of said Vinod
Kumar.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to show that the
findings recorded by lower appellate Court are perverse or illegal or
based on misreading, non-reading or mis-appreciation of the material
evidence on record.
13. 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.
14. Dismissed.
7 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037951
RSA-2772 of 1998 (O&M)
15. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of
accordingly.
(NAMIT KUMAR)
15.03.2024 JUDGE
R.S.
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037951
8 of 8
