Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab vs Gurbachan Singh on 26 March, 2025
Author: Vikas Bahl
Bench: Vikas Bahl
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:041399
RSA-1477-1994 (O&M) [1]
101
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA-1477-1994 (O&M)
Date of decision: 26.03.2025
State of Punjab and another
...Appellants
Versus
Gurbachan Singh (since deceased) through his LRs
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr. Surya Kumar, AAG, Punjab, for the appellants.
Mr. K.S. Brar, Advocate for the respondent(s).
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
1. The respondent(s)-plaintiff had filed the suit for declaration to
the effect that the order dated 14.09.1988 passed by the Superintendent of
Police, Ferozepur dismissing the plaintiff from the service as well as the
order passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ferozepur Range,
Ferozepur, rejecting the appeal filed by the respondent-plaintiff with the
modification, are illegal. The said suit was decreed and the plaintiff was
held entitled to the service benefits since the date of dismissal from service.
An appeal filed by the State was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on
17.11.1993. Vide order dated 04.08.1994 passed by the Coordinate Bench
of this Court, the matter was admitted and operation of the impugned
judgment under appeal was stayed.
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:041399
RSA-1477-1994 (O&M) [2]
2. The order passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Ferozepur Range, Ferozepur, reads as under:-
"ORDER
This order dispuses of an appeal submitted by Ex. Head
Constable Gurbachan Singh No.1008/FZR against the order of
S.P/Ferozepur No.653-59/ST dated 14.9.88, vide which he was
dismissed from Police Force.
The allegations levelled against him were that he was
deputed on temporary duty with effect from 21.1.88 as Guard
Incharge in the Kothi of Commissioner, Ferozepur. On 2.3.88,
he was transferred to Police Station Cantt Ferozepur as
H.H.C. vide order No.595 dated 2.3.1988. He absented himself
w.e.f. 3.3.1988 without taking any leave or permission of the
competent authority and was marked absent vide D.D.R. No.52
dated 4.3.88 in the Roznamcha of police lines, Ferozepur. He
was placed under suspension with effect from 3.3.1988 for his
absence. This Head Constable reported back for duty on
23.9.88 after absenting himself for 26 days. After completion of
departmental enquiry, he was dismissed from service with
effect from 14.9.1988 Α.N.
I have gone through the appeal of Ex.Head Constable
Gurbachan Singh No.1008/Ferozepur, his service record,
office note and other relevant documents, and found that the
appellant is a habitual absentee and also fond of drinking and
deserve no leniency, but Ex. Head Constable Gurbachan Singh
No.1008/FZR had appeared before me in the office. The entire
family of the appellant is very poor and in miserable condition.
There is basically appeal for mercy and human consideration.
Considering every aspect, I take a lenient view and the
punishment of dismissal is modified to the extent that two years
approved service with permanent effect is forfeited and
Ex.Head Constable Gurbachan Singh No.1008/FZR is re-
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:041399
RSA-1477-1994 (O&M) [3]
instated in service with immediate effect. He will not be
entitled to draw any benefit of arrears of pay and allowances
etc.
One copy of the order may be delivered to the appellant
free of cost against acknowledgment.
Sd/-
Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Ferozepur Range, Ferozepur."
3. Learned counsel for the appellants-State, has submitted that the
impugned judgments are not in accordance with law and deserve to be set
aside as merely the fact that the absence period of the plaintiff had been
treated as leave without pay, would not wash away the absence of the
plaintiff from service. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon the
judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in RSA No.1866 of 1995
decided on 13.03.2024 titled as "State of Punjab Vs. Constable Chander
Parkash."
4. Learned counsel for the respondent(s), on instructions, has
submitted that as per the abovesaid order passed by the Deputy
Inspector General of Police, Ferozepur Range, Ferozepur, a lenient view
had been taken by the authorities and the dismissal order was modified to
the extent that two years approved service with permanent effect were
forfeited and the plaintiff was reinstated in service with immediate effect
and he was held not entitled to draw any benefits of arrears of pay and
allowances etc.. It is further submitted that admittedly, the order of the
Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ferozepur Range, Ferozepur has not
been set aside by the State authorities and thus, respondent(s)-plaintiff is at
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:041399
RSA-1477-1994 (O&M) [4]
least entitled to the benefits under the abovesaid order of the Deputy
Inspector General of Police, Ferozepur Range, Ferozepur. It is submitted
that in pursuance of the said order, the plaintiff was reinstated in service
prior to the passing of the interim order by the Coordinate Bench of this
Court. Learned counsel for the respondent(s)-plaintiff has submitted that
thereafter, the plaintiff had worked and has also died and thus, he would be
satisfied in case the present Regular Second Appeal is disposed of by
upholding the abovesaid order of the Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Ferozepur Range, Ferozepur. It is further submitted that all the benefits
under the order of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ferozepur
Range, Ferozepur have already been received by the respondent(s)-plaintiff.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants-State, on instructions from
Amit Kumar, Incharge, SSP, Office, Ferozepur, has stated that the order of
the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ferozepur Range, Ferozepur, has
not been set aside by the State Authorities and has also reaffirmed the fact
that the plaintiff, subsequent to the passing of the order by the Deputy
Inspector General of Police, Ferozepur Range, Ferozepur, was reinstated
and had retired from service and had since died. It is submitted that since it
is not the appellants-State which have filed the suit, thus, the appellants-
State cannot possibly deny the respondent(s)-plaintiff's benefits under the
order passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ferozepur Range,
Ferozepur. It is, however, submitted that in case the respondent(s)-plaintiff
are restricting their rights only to the order passed by the Deputy Inspector
General of Police, Ferozepur Range, Ferozepur, then, in the said terms, the
present Regular Second Appeal be disposed of.
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:041399
RSA-1477-1994 (O&M) [5]
6. Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances and the
arguments raised on behalf of learned counsel for the appellants-State as
well as learned counsel for the respondent(s)-plaintiff and also the fact that
the order passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ferozepur
Range, Ferozepur has not been set aside by the authorities of the State of
Punjab, the present Regular Second Appeal is disposed of by upholding the
order of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ferozepur Range,
Ferozepur and the respondent(s)-plaintiff would be entitled to the benefits
under the said order, if not already received, and would not be entitled to
any further benefits.
26.03.2025 (VIKAS BAHL)
Pawan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
5 of 5
