Mann Singh vs State Of Punjab
2024 Latest Caselaw 9452 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Mann Singh vs State Of Punjab on 2 May, 2024

                                  Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061643


                                                                           1

RSA-1330 of 1993 (O&M)
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                   AT CHANDIGARH

                                 RSA-1330 of 1993 (O&M)
                                 Reserved on: 26.04.2024
                                 Pronounced on: 02.05.2024
Mann Singh
                                                              ......Appellant
                   Versus

State of Punjab and others
                                                            ......Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR

Argued by: Mr. Sandeep Arora, 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 08.02.1991, passed by the Court of learned

Sub-Judge, 3rd Class, Jalandhar, whereby suit filed by the plaintiff-

appellant for declaration was dismissed as well as against the judgment

and decree dated 01.02.1993, passed by the Court of learned Additional

District Judge, Jalandhar, whereby appeal filed by the appellant against

the judgment and decree dated 08.02.1991, was dismissed.

2. Parties to the lis are being referred as per their status

before the trial Court. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff filed a

suit for declaration pleading therein that he joined the Punjab Police

Department as a Constable on 28.03.1973 in the P.A.P at Jalandhar

Cantt. He married with Raghvir Kaur daughter of Kehar Singh, r/o

village Daudpur, Distt. Jalandhar, in 1978. From this wedlock a son

was born but died. Thereafter, his relations with his wife became

strained and she started living separately with her parents. Raghvir

1 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061643

RSA-1330 of 1993 (O&M) Kaur refused to resume the society of the plaintiff. Raghvir Kaur

started levelling allegations of bigamy against the plaintiff and she

made complaints. On the basis of the complaints, departmental inquiry

was ordered to be initiated against him. In the inquiry it was held that

the plaintiff had contracted a second marriage with Sidho daughter of

Sh. Rattan Singh resident of village Khanowal, Tehsil and Distt.

Kapurthala without the consent of Raghvir Kaur. On the basis of

inquiry report, the Commandant, 7th Battalion, dismissed the plaintiff

from service vide order dated 31.08.1985. The plaintiff filed an appeal

against the said order to Deputy Inspector General of Police, PAP,

Jalandhar Cantt. The appeal was also dismissed vide orders dated

05.02.1986. The plaintiff alleged that the impugned orders were illegal

and ultra-vires as the same were passed without following the proper

procedure for conducting the departmental inquiry. There was no

evidence that he contracted a second marriage rather there was enough

evidence on the file that Sidho was the wife of his brother. The sanction

of the District Magistrate as required under Rule 16.38 of the Punjab

Police Rules was not taken for holding departmental inquiry against

him. The inquiry was without jurisdiction and authority. The plaintiff

was not heard by the punishing authority before passing the impugned

order. The appellate Authority also did not apply its mind while

dismissing his appeal. The impugned orders were illegal. He prayed

that the orders be set aside.

3. The suit was contested by the defendants on the ground

that the inquiry was conducted in accordance with Rules. The plaintiff

2 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061643

RSA-1330 of 1993 (O&M) contravened the provisions of Government Employees Conduct Rules,

1966, and he married Sidho. He was guilty of bigamy. The inquiry was

held in accordance with Rules and he was rightly dismissed from

Service.

4. On the pleading of the parties, following issues were

framed by the trial Court:-

1. Whether the impugned orders dated 5.2.1986 and 31.8.85 dismissing the plaintiff from service are illegal, void, unlawful etc.? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration prayed for ?OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff had served a valid notice before filing the present suit? OPD

4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

5. Relief.

5. The trial Court, after hearing learned counsel for the

parties and appreciating the evidence on record, dismissed the suit of

the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 08.02.1991.

6. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial

Court, plaintiff preferred an appeal, which has also been dismissed by

the lower Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 01.02.1993.

Hence, this Regular Second Appeal by the plaintiff-appellant.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that

judgments and decrees of the Courts below are based on surmises and

conjectures. He further contended that both the Courts below failed to

appreciate the evidence properly inasmuch as there is nothing on record

that appellant contracted second marriage. He further contended that

3 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061643

RSA-1330 of 1993 (O&M) inquiry was conducted in contravention of the provisions of law and

services rules. He further contended that inquiry conducted against the

appellant was without jurisdiction and authority as no sanction of the

District Magistrate as required under Rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police

Rules was taken. He further contended that both the Courts failed to

appreciate that length of service and claim to pension of the appellant

was not considered before the order of his dismissal. He contended that

judgments and decrees of the Courts below being perverse are liable to

be set aside. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the

judgments of this Court in The Punjab State through the Secretary to

Government of Punjab, Chandigarh and others v. Lachhman Singh,

Ex-Constable, 2010(2) S.C.T. 62; CWP-2844 of 1993 - Ex-Const.

Niranjan Singh v. State of Haryana and others - decided on

14.07.2004; Sh. Chuhar Singh v. Punjab State and others, 2012(3)

S.C.T. 562 and Shanti Devi v. Ashok Kumar, 2020(1) R.C.R.(Civil)

975.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-

State submitted that the judgments and decrees of the Courts below are

perfectly legal and valid, therefore, same do not call for any

interference by this Court.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

the record.

10. Perusal of the record shows that pursuant to complaint of

Raghbir Kaur, wife of the appellant, departmental inquiry was initiated

against the appellant in accordance with the rules. During enquiry

4 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061643

RSA-1330 of 1993 (O&M) eight witnesses were examined. Appellant was given opportunity to

cross-examine the witnesses. During enquiry it was found that

appellant had contracted second marriage against the Government

Employees Conduct Rules, 1966. Concurrence of the District

Magistrate is only required if the charges framed against the enrolled

police officer or the complaint alleges commission of a criminal

offence in connection with the official relations with the public. If this

situation does not exist, Rule 16.38(1) of the Rules would not apply.

Both the Courts below have rightly observed that present is a case

where the allegations against the appellant would not fall within the

ambit of Rule 16.38 as the mis-conduct would not amount to

commission of a criminal offence by him in connection with his official

relations with the public. Thus, the Courts below have rightly held that

Rule 16.38 of the Rules would not be attracted in the present case.

Reliance is placed upon the judgments of a Co-ordinate Bench of this

Court in CWP-10062 of 2011 - Balbir Singh s/o Ram Kishan v. State

of Haryana and others decided on 03.11.2012 and RSA No.1664 of

2017 - PHC Gursharan Singh v. The State of Punjab and others

decided on 11.02.2019. At the time of dismissal from service appellant

had completed about 12½ years service only, therefore, he was not

entitled for pension. Therefore, finding of the trial Court that merely

because no specific order to this effect was passed does not mean that

length of service and claim of the plaintiff-appellant to pension was not

considered before the order of dismissal was passed, is correct.

5 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061643

RSA-1330 of 1993 (O&M)

11. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the

appellant are of no assistance to him as the same are not applicable to

the facts and circumstances of the present case.

12. Concurrent findings have been recorded by both the

Courts below, which do not call for any interference by this Court.

13. No question of law muchless substantial question of law

arises for consideration in this appeal.

14. Dismissed.

15. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of in view of

the aforesaid judgment.

                                               (NAMIT KUMAR)
02.05.2024                                        JUDGE
R.S.

             Whether speaking/reasoned         :      Yes/No

             Whether Reportable                :      Yes/No




                                  6 of 6