RSA No.3826 of 2008 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
RSA No.3826 of 2008
Date of Decision: 27.11.2008
State of Punjab and others .....Appellants
Vs.
Hardeep Singh ....Respondent
....
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. 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 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE