Jasbir Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Present: Mr. RS Mamli, Advocate, for the appellant. GURDEV SINGH, J. This second appeal has been preferred by Jasbir Singh- appellant/plaintiff, whose suit for declaration to the effect that the departmental inquiry and the order dated 17.3.2003 passed by respondent No.3/defendant No.3, the subsequent order passed in appeal by the Inspector General of Police and the order dated 18.3.2003 passed by the Director General of Police, are wrong, illegal null and void, ineffective and not binding upon him and his suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to revoke those orders and disburse the monetary benefits to him, alongwith interest @ 18% per annum, was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagadhri, vide judgment and decree dated

24.7.2008 and the first appeal preferred against that judgment and decree was dismissed by the District Judge, Yamuna Nagar, vide judgment and decree dated 12.10.2009. The case of the plaintiff is that in the month of July 2001, he RSA No. 1204 of 2010 2 was posted in Police Station Chhachhrauli and was acting in the summons staff under the supervision and direction of the Station House Officer (SHO) of that police station. Bali Ram son of Telu Ram was an accused in FIR No. 95 dated 24.9.2000 registered in that Police Station under Sections 409, 420 and 120-B IPC. The report about death of that accused was called by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagadhri (JMIC), from the SHO and the summons were handed over to him by the SHO with a direction to serve the same on the family members of accused Bali Ram so that his death could be verified. He went to the village Chhachhrauli and contacted Vinod Kumar and Om Parkash, brother of the said accused and asked them to come present in the Police Station to verify his death and served the summons upon them accordingly. Thereafter, he handed over those summons to the MHC of the Police Station who committed a mistake by despatching the same to the JMIC wrongly and negligently instead of placing the same before the SHO. He himself was not competent to send the report directly to the Court and negligence was on the part of the MHC. He furnished satisfactory evidence before the Inquiry Officer but still impugned orders were passed without appreciating that evidence. The suit was contested by the respondents/defendants. In the written statement, they admitted passing of the aforesaid orders against the plaintiff after holding departmental inquiry. They also admitted that notice had been issued by the JMIC to the Officer in-charge of the Police Station for submitting the report regarding the death of Bali Ram-accused in FIR 95 dated 24.9.2000 and that at the relevant time, the plaintiff was serving in the summons staff. They denied other contentions made in the plaint and, inter- alia, pleaded that after serving of the summons, it was obligatory on the part RSA No. 1204 of 2010 3 of the plaintiff to put those summons before the SHO for further necessary action for sending of the report to the Judicial Magistrate. Instead of doing so, the plaintiff himself sent those summons with improper report of service to the court. A valid and legal order has been passed after holding the inquiry in accordance with the rules. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial court:- “1. Whether the order dated 17.3.2003 subsequent order passed by appellant authority and the order dated

18.8.2003 are illegal, null and void ? OPP

2. Whether suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable ? OPD

3. Relief.” To succeed in the pliant, the plaintiff examined himself as PW- 1, Om Parkash (PW-2) and Vinod Kumar (PW-3). On the other hand, defendant examined Dewak Ram as DW-1. After going through the evidence so produced on the record and hearing learned counsel for the plaintiff and the GP for the defendants, the trial court decided Issue No. 1 against the plaintiff and Issue No.2 in his favour and resultantly dismissed his suit. I have heard learned counsel for the plaintiff. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the Inquiry Officer did not consider the evidence produced by the plaintiff in his defence that the summons so entrusted to him for service were duly served upon the concerned persons; namely, Om Parkash and Vinod Kumar. Both of them were examined during the inquiry and they fully corroborated the version of the plaintiff. The Inquiry Officer did not RSA No. 1204 of 2010 4 follow the Rules of natural justice and the punishment imposed by the punishing authority is not proportionate to the misconduct complained of. According to him, the following substantial questions of law are involved in the present appeal:- “1. Whether during the inquiry the impugned misconduct was proved against the plaintiff ?

2. Whether the punishment imposed upon the plaintiff by the punishing authority is disproportionate to the misconducted complained of ?” The submissions of the learned counsel for the plaintiff are misconceived. The misconduct so imputed to him and for which charge- sheet was served was not that he failed to serve the summons upon the concerned persons. The alleged misconduct was that he did not hand over the summons after service to the officer In-charge of the Police Station. That charge was duly proved against him. The evidence produced by him in defence was never to the effect that he had handed over the summons to the Officer In-charge of the Police Station. He examined both the said persons in the trial court also and at that time they only made their statements to the effect that the summons were served upon them. Those summons were given to the plaintiff by the officer In-charge for their service and the same were to be returned to him, who was to submit the report, after due verification, to the concerned court about the death of Bali Ram. In pursuance of the summons, the witnesses were to appear before him and he was to record their statements for the verification of the said fact. It cannot be said that the findings recorded by the lower courts are based upon misreading of the evidence or perverse. RSA No. 1204 of 2010 5 It cannot be said that the punishment so imposed upon the plaintiff is disproportionate to the misconduct so imputed to him. He belongs to a disciplined force and was required to obey the orders of his superiors in real spirit and methodically. The civil court can interfere in the punishment imposed by the punishing/disciplinary authority only if the punishment is totally disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. December 8, 2010 (GURDEV SINGH ) JUDGE