Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tilak Raj H.C vs State Of Punjab And Others on 21 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042183
-1-
RSA-1557 of 1995 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-1557 of 1995 (O&M)
Reserved on: 13.03.2024
Pronounced on: 21.03.2024
Tilak Raj
......Appellant
Versus
Punjab State and another
......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: - Mr. P.S. Chahal, Advocate,
for Mr. G.S. Nagra, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. Rajesh Sehgal, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
NAMIT KUMAR, J.
1. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the
judgment and decree dated 10.01.1995 passed by the Court of learned
Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, whereby appeal filed by the
respondents-State against the judgment and decree dated 17.12.1991
passed by the Court of learned Sub Judge, Ferozepur, has been allowed,
judgment and decree of the trial Court has been set aside and suit of the
plaintiff-appellant has been dismissed.
2. Parties to the lis are being referred to as per their status
before the trial Court. Briefly stated, plaintiff pleaded that he is the
regular and permanent employee in the Punjab Police and in the year
1984 he was posted at Police Station City Fazilka. In 1986 a
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042183
RSA-1557 of 1995 (O&M)
departmental enquiry was launched against him on the allegations that
while posted at Police Station City Fazilka in 1984, he along with ASI
Paramjit Singh detected eight persons gambling near Sub-Jail, Fazilka
but out of those eight persons, four were let off by them whereas
remaining four were challaned in two cases bearing F.I.R. No. 132/84
and 133/84 registered under Section 13 of the Gambling Act at Police
Station City Fazilka. In the said cases they swindled the amount of
Rs.2,000/-recovered from the accused persons. Vide order dated
09.03.1987, Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur, forfeited
plaintiff's five years approved service with permanent effect. Against
the said order, plaintiff filed appeal before the Deputy Inspector
General of Police, Ferozepur Range, Farozepur and the appeal was
rejected vide order dated 05.07.1988 except that the punishment was
reduced to forfeiture of one years approved service. Impugned orders
dated 09.03.1987 and 05.07.1988 were challenged by way of suit for
declaration by the plaintiff. On 19.05.1989 trial court struck of the
defence of the defendants for non-filing of the written statement.
3. From the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court
framed the following issues:-
1. Whether the orders dated 9.3.1987 passed by the
S.S.P. Farozepur and dated 5.7.1988 passed by the
Deputy Inspector General of Police is null and void
on the grounds mentioned in the plaint? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration
prayed for? OPP
3. Whether notice under section 80 C.P.C. served
upon the defendants before filing the present suit is
invalid? OPD
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042183
RSA-1557 of 1995 (O&M)
4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present
form? OPD
5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of
necessary parties? OPD
6. Relief.
4. Parties led oral as well as documentary evidence in
support of their respective contentions.
5. After hearing arguments and after appreciating evidence
on record, trial Court decreed the suit of plaintiff vide judgment and
decree dated 17.12.1991.
6. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial
Court, respondents-defendants preferred an appeal before the lower
appellate Court, which has been accepted vide judgment and decree
dated 10.01.1995.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the lower
appellate Court wrongly reversed the well-reasoned judgment of the
trial Court. He further contended that while conducting departmental
enquiry proper procedure was not followed by the department under
Rules 16.24 and 16.38 of the Police Rules. The appellant was not
supplied the copies of statements of witnesses and other documents as
required under law. The enquiry officer has no jurisdiction to examine
the witnesses whose names were not mentioned in the list and further
submitted that the facts finding report cannot be taken into
consideration by punishing authority while awarding punishment to the
appellant. He further contended that respondents-defendant did not file
written statement, therefore, claim of the appellant-plaintiff is deemed
to be admitted by them and the trial Court rightly decreed the suit of the
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042183
RSA-1557 of 1995 (O&M)
plaintiff. He further contended that the judgment and decree of the
lower appellate Court is illegal and against the law, therefore, the same
is liable to be set aside.
8. Per contra, learned State counsel supported the judgment
and decree of the lower appellate Court. He further contended that
judgment and decree of the trial Court was based on mis-reading of
evidence and law, therefore, same has rightly been set aside by the
lower appellate Court.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
10. In the present case allegations against the plaintiff-
appellant were that he along with ASI Paramjit Singh found eight
persons gambling near Sub-jail, Fazilka but out of those eight persons,
four persons were let off whereas four were challaned in case FIR
Nos.132 of 1984 and 133 of 1984 under Section 13 of the Gambling
Act at Police Station City Fazilka and plaintiff and ASI Paramjit Singh
embezzled amount of Rs.2,000/- from the accused persons. Perusal of
the record shows that departmental enquiry against the plaintiff was
conducted as per Punjab Police Rules and necessary sanction of the
District Magistrate as required under Rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police
Rules was obtained and regular departmental enquiry was conducted
under Rule 16.25 of the Punjab Police Rules and reasonable
opportunities were afforded to the plaintiff to defend himself, therefore,
departmental proceedings do not suffer from any illegality and Senior
Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur was competent to pass the
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042183
RSA-1557 of 1995 (O&M)
impugned order against the appellant-plaintiff. No provisions of the
Punjab Police Rules were violated during the course of conducting
departmental enquiry while passing the impugned order.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to show that
findings recorded by the lower appellate Court 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, present appeal is dismissed.
14. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of
accordingly.
(NAMIT KUMAR)
21.03.2024 JUDGE
R.S.
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
