Budh Ram vs Inspector General Of Police on 22 October, 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                               Regular Second Appeal No. 320 of 2008
                               Date of Order: 22.10.2008

Budh Ram                                                             ...Appellant

                                        Versus

Inspector General of Police, Haryana and others.                   ..Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA

Present: Mr. Vimal Kumar Gupta, Advocate
for the appellant.

Mr. Ajay Chaudhary, D.A.G.,Haryana.

for the respondents.

RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral).

The appellant, challenges the judgments and decrees, passed by

the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagadhri, dated 18.08.2005 and the

District Judge, Yamunagar, dated 26.07.2007, dismissing the suit and the

appeal, filed by the appellant.

While working as a police constable with the Haryana Police, the

appellant was served with a show cause notice. An enquiry ensued and the

enquiry officer submitted his report indicting the appellant. The

Superintendent of Police imposed a punishment of stoppage of two

increments with cumulative effect vide order dated 18.01.1996. The

revision filed by the appellant before the revisional authority was dismissed

on 25.06.1996. The appellant filed a suit on 21.12.2000 challenging the

order of punishment. Both the trial Court as also the first appellate Court

held that the suit was barred by time.

Counsel for the appellant submits that in the case of constable

Tarsem Lal, who was accused of the same misconduct and was awarded

the same punishment, the Financial Commissioner vide order dated

29.05.2000 has reduced the punishment to one of censure. The appellant

filed the suit after the Financial Commissioner reduced Tarsem

Lal’s punishment, as a fresh cause of action accrued to challenge the
Regular Second Appeal No. 320 of 2008 -2-

order of punishment. It is, therefore, submitted that the suit could not be

dismissed as barred by time.

Counsel for the respondents, however submits that limitation for

filing of the suit commenced on 18.01.1996 or on 25.06.1996. The suit

was filed on 21.12.2000 and was clearly barred by time. It is submitted that

the reduction of punishment to Tarsem Lal would not give rise to a fresh

cause of action to the appellant to challenge the order of punishment

imposed on him.

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned

judgments.

Admittedly, the order of punishment is dated 18.01.1996. The

appellant’s revision was dismissed on 25.06.1996. The suit filed on

20.12.2000 was, therefore, clearly barred by time. The contention that as

punishment of his co-accused, Tarsem Lal, was reduced to one of

censure, it would give rise to a fresh cause of action and, therefore,

extend the period of limitation cannot be accepted as the punishment was

reduced after the expiry of the period of limitation and, therefore, would

not extend the period of limitation in the appellant’s case.

As a result, the findings of fact recorded by the courts below that

the suit is barred by time does not call for interference. As no question of

law muchless a substantial question of law arises for consideration, the

appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Liberty is however, granted to the appellant to file a mercy

petition before the Financial Commissioner, in accordance with the rules.

October 22, 2008                                       (RAJIVE BHALLA)
nt                                                         JUDGE