Pawan Kumar vs State Of Haryana & Ors
2024 Latest Caselaw 9453 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Pawan Kumar vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 2 May, 2024

                                   Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061644

                                                                           1
RSA-5645 of 2015 (O&M)


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                   AT CHANDIGARH


                                 RSA-5645 of 2015 (O&M)
                                 Reserved on: 25.04.2024
                                 Pronounced on: 02.05.2024


Constable Pawan Kumar
                                                              ......Appellant

                   Versus


The State of Haryana and others
                                                            ......Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR

Argued by: - None for the appellant.

             Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, DAG, Haryana.

NAMIT KUMAR, J.

1. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the

judgment and decree dated 23.12.2013, passed by the Court of learned

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhiwani, whereby suit for declaration

filed by the plaintiff-appellant was dismissed, as well as against the

judgment and decree dated 17.04.2015, passed by the Court of learned

District Judge, Bhiwani, whereby appeal preferred by the appellant

against the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2013, was dismissed.

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

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

suit for declaration against the defendants on the grounds that plaintiff

was a regular employee of Haryana Police Department. He was arrested

in a false case bearing FIR No.96 dated 15.2.2001, under Sections 406,

1 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061644

RSA-5645 of 2015 (O&M)

420 of IPC registered at Police Station City Hisar. However, he was

acquitted of all the charges by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate

1st Class, Hisar, vide order dated 17.11.2008. It was averred that after

registration of the above said false case, plaintiff remained under

suspension for 255 days. Senior Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani, had

treated the plaintiff as absent from duty and ordered for departmental

enquiry against him. The Enquiry Officer had held that the plaintiff had

acted in contravention of rules. It was further averred that enquiry was

false and fabricated. SSP, Bhiwani on the basis of enquiry report,

issued a show cause notice dated 17.04.2009 to the plaintiff. The

plaintiff replied to the show cause notice but the SSP did not consider it

and awarded the punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with

permanent effect and treated the suspension period as leave without pay

vide order dated 12.12.2002. It was further averred that against the

order dated 12.12.2002, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before

Inspector General of Police, Hisar Range, Hisar but the same was

rejected on 29.07.2003 mechanically without going through the merits

of the case. It was further averred that against order dated 29.07.2003,

plaintiff further preferred appeal before the Director General of Police,

Haryana, Panchkula, but vide order dated 27.02.2004, the same was

also dismissed. It was further averred that the above said orders of SSP,

Bhiwani, IG, Hisar Range, Hisar and DGP, Haryana, were wrong,

illegal, against law and facts and same were not binding upon the rights

of the plaintiff and the plaintiff was entitled to get the annual increment

restricted and full pay and allowances for the suspension period

2 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061644

RSA-5645 of 2015 (O&M)

alongwith interest @12% per annum. The plaintiff served a legal notice

under Section 80 CPC upon the defendants through his counsel on

dated 11.03.2011 but to no effect, which necessitated the filing of the

present suit.

3. Upon notice, defendants filed their joint written statement

controverting the averments made in the plaint. Several preliminary

objections regarding limitation and res-judicata were taken. It was

pleaded that departmental enquiry was initiated against the plaintiff on

the allegations that on 26.04.2000, he had disappeared with the answer

sheet while appearing in B.A. IInd year examination held at D.N.

College, Hisar. On merits, it was averred that the plaintiff had been

suspended for the misconduct committed by him. The acquittal in the

criminal case had no effect on the departmental enquiry. The Enquiry

Officer had conducted the enquiry as per Punjab Police Rules and

principles of natural justice. The plaintiff was given chance to cross-

examine the PWs. Defendants No.2 to 4 passed orders dated 27.2.2004,

29.7.2003 and 12.12.2002, respectively as per law and facts. All other

averments made in the plaint were also controverted and dismissal of

the suit was prayed for.

4. Replication was not filed by the plaintiff. On pleadings of

the parties following issues were framed by the trial Court: -

1. Whether order no.46723-24 dated 12.12.2002 passed by S.P. Bhiwani and order no.16819/A dated 29.7.2003 passed by IG. Hisar Range, Hisar and order dated 27.02.2004 passed by D.G.P Haryana are wrong, against law and facts and liable to be set aside as alleged? OPP

3 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061644

RSA-5645 of 2015 (O&M)

2. If issue no.1 is proved then whether plaintiff is entitled to get annual increment and full pay and allowances for the suspension period i.e. 255 days alongwith interest @12% per annum as alleged? OPP

3. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi and no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD

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

5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-

joinder of necessary parties? OPD

6. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD

7. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands and has concealed the true and material facts from the court? OPD

8. Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? OPD

9. Relief.

5. After hearing arguments and after appreciating evidence

on record, trial Court dismissed the suit of plaintiff vide judgment and

decree dated 23.12.2013.

6. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial

Court, plaintiff preferred an appeal before the lower appellate Court,

which has been dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 17.04.2015.

7. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the appellant.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents-State supported the

judgments and decrees of the Courts below. He contended that in the

case of the plaintiff no prior permission of District Magistrate was

required, therefore, there is no violation of Rule 16.38(1) of the Rules.

4 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061644

RSA-5645 of 2015 (O&M)

He further contended that acquittal in the criminal case does not

entitled the plaintiff to claim all the benefits.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the respondents and

perused the record.

10. While appearing in B.A.-II examination, on 26.04.2002,

the appellant disappeared with answer sheet. For the mis-conduct of

the appellant, regular departmental enquiry was initiated against him as

per rules and proper opportunity of hearing was given to him. After

conclusion of departmental inquiry, on 19.11.2000, show-cause notice

was issued to the appellant vide which proposed punishment was

communicated to the plaintiff-appellant. Senior Superintendent of

Police, Bhiwani, vide order dated 12.12.2002, awarded the punishment

of stoppage of two annual increments of the plaintiff with permanent

effect and treated the suspension period as leave without pay. The

appeals preferred by the appellant against the said orders were also

dismissed. This Court finds no fault with the enquiry conducted by the

department against the appellant as the same was conducted as per rules

and following the principles of natural justice and the punishment

awarded to him is proportionate to the mis-conduct committed by him.

11. 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. Present is a case where the allegations

against the appellant would not fall within the ambit of Rule16.38 as

5 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061644

RSA-5645 of 2015 (O&M)

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. Appellant had involved himself in

a crime, though he was later acquitted, and disabled himself from

rendering service. 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.

12. There are concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts

below that punishment awarded to the appellant is proportionate to the

mis-conduct committed by him; Rule 16.38 is not attracted in the

present case.

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

accordingly.

                                                  (NAMIT KUMAR)
02.05.2024                                            JUDGE
R.S.

                Whether speaking/reasoned         :      Yes/No

                Whether Reportable                :      Yes/No




                                    6 of 6