State of Punjab & Ors. v. Hardeep Singh
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 27 Nov 2008
- Bench
- RAJIVE BHALLA
Outcome
Dismissed
consideration, the appeal is dismissed
Provisions considered
Judgment
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. H.S. Gill, DAG, Punjab, for the appellants. None for the respondent. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgements and decrees dated
24.10.2007 and 7.8.2008, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Batala and the District Judge, Gurdaspur, decreeing the suit filed by the respondent and dismissing the appeal filed by the State of Punjab. The plaintiff-respondent was served with a show cause notice requiring him to explain his absence from duty. After service of a charge sheet and conduct of a departmental enquiry, he was punished by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Batala, by awarding a punishment of forfeiture of one year's approved service and the period of absence was directed to be treated as period not spent on duty. The plaintiff challenged the order of punishment by alleging that he had not been provided the service of a co- worker and was denied an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses produced by the department. After considering the controversy in its entirety, the trial Court decreed the suit and set aside the order of punishment by holding that departmental proceedings conducted in RSA No.3826 of 2008 2 violation of the Rules had caused prejudice to the respondent in putting forth his defence.
Aggrieved by the said judgement and decree, the State of Punjab filed an appeal. The first appellate Court dismissed the appeal. Counsel for the State of Punjab submits that absence from duty is a grave and serious offence. As departmental proceedings do not suffer from any serious lapse and as the respondent has failed to establish any prejudice, the Courts below erred in decreeing the suit. It is further submitted that as the respondent is a police constable, the provisions of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 were wrongly applied by the Courts below, while decreeing the suit and dismissing the appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned judgements. The trial Court, as also the first appellate Court have recorded concurrent findings of fact that the plaintiff was denied an opportunity to cross-examine departmental witnesses and was not provided the service of a co-worker.
Operative part
Punjab Police Rules do not envisage providing the services of a co-worker to a delinquent official. The Courts below, however, relied upon Kartar Singh and others V. State of Punjab and others, 1994(4) Recent Services Judgements, 204 to hold that where Punjab Police Rules are silent, as to matters of procedure, Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules would apply. The failure, therefore, to provide the services of a co-worker and an opportunity to cross-examine the departmental witnesses are infractions that had led to prejudice to the respondent and, therefore, vitiate the proceedings of enquiry and the order of punishment. I find no error in the exercise of jurisdiction by the Courts below that would RSA No.3826 of 2008 3 require interference in the exercise of powers under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. As no substantial question of law arises for consideration, the appeal is dismissed.
27.11.2008 GS (RAJIVE BHALLA) JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: consideration, the appeal is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 100.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 27 Nov 2008. The bench was RAJIVE BHALLA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.