Gurnam Singh vs The State of Haryana and Others

Swatanter Kumar, J.—This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala, dated 1.5.1997. Vide impugned order, the learned first Appellate Court dismissed the appeal being without merit with costs. Consequently, affirming the findings and the conclusions arrived at by the learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 7.10.1996.

Gurnam Singh filed a suit for declaration stating that the resignation dated 1.12.1989 was a result of pressure, duress and coercion by the Head Clerk Sudarshan Kumar. In fact, he never submitted the resignation out of his free Will and the same was ineffective and null and void, hence prayed for continuity of service and setting aside the consequential order passed by the Superintendent of Police, Ambala dated 1.12.1989.

The suit was contested by the defendants. All the averments made in the suit were disputed and it was stated that the plaintiff remained on medical leave on different dates with effect from 8.9.1989 to 10.9.1989, 11.9.1989 to 1.10.1989 and 3.10.1989 to 1.11.1989 for having domestic problems and as a result of which he submitted his resignation, which was accepted by the competent authority and as such, the suit was not maintainable.

The learned trial Court vide its order dated 19.4.1995 framed the following issues:-

i) Whether the resignation accepted by defendant No. 2 has been obtained under duress, pressure, and coercion and in violation of the Police Rules and Rules of natural justice? OPP.

ii) If issue No. l is proved then whether the plaintiff continues to be in service and is entitled to the entire service benefit? OPP.

iii) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD.

iv) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD.

v) Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD.

vi) Whether the suit is bad for want of notice u/s 80 of C.P.C.? OPD.

vi) Relief.

Having afforded the opportunities to lead evidence in support of their respective case, the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 7.10.1996, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, while answering all the material issues against the plaintiff. The said judgment and decree was unsuccessfully challenged in appeal, giving rise to the present Regular Second Appeal.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the alleged resignation had been submitted and accepted in most unusual manner. There was no occasion for the appellant to submit his resignation to the Superintendent of Police as in normal course, he would have submitted the resignation to his immediate superior officer. According to him, the learned courts below have not appreciated the evidence correctly and as such, the findings of the learned Courts below are liable to be set aside.

At the very outset, I would like to make reference to the findings recorded by the learned first appellate Court, while affirming the findings arrived at by the learned trial Court. The relevant portion of the findings reads as under:-

"After going through the evidence on the file, I regret rny inability to accept the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant that the alleged resignation letter copy of which is Ex.D.1 was actually not made on 25.9.1989 but on 1.12.1989 and that the same was not voluntary and the same was taken under duress and pressure. It is true that the statement of PW.1 Dr. R.K. Patnaik, Senior Psychiatrist, Civil Hospital, Ambala City shows that the plaintiff was suffering from acute depression and he was advised best rest for four days from 5.9.1989, vide OPD slip, copy of which is Ex.P-2. The statement of PW-1 Dr. R.K. Patnaik, also shows that OPD slips Ex.P.3 to P.11 which are dated 14.9.1989, 21,9,1990, 16.10.1989, 26.10.1989, 3.5.1990,10.5.1990, 28.9.1989 and 3.5.1989, were bearing his signatures and he had prescribed the treatment of depression for the plaintiff-appellant. Statement of PW-3 Dr. Ramesh Chander also shows that he treated the plaintiff-appellant for depression and low blood pressure.

The resignation letter, copy of which is Ex.D.1 nowhere shows that the plaintiff alleged that he was suffering from depression and low blood pressure and therefore, it was not possible for him to work any more in the Police department. It was also not alleged in the resignation letter by the plaintiff that he was resigning because it was not possible for him to arrange a gala party with drinks for Head Constable Sudarshan Kumar. Significantly the resignation letter of the plaintiff, copy of which is Ex.D.1 shows that the plaintiff made a request for accepting his resignation on the ground of his domestic problems. He served a two month''s notice w.e.f. 25.9.1989 and requested that his resignation be accepted w.e.f. 1.12.1989. He also specifically wrote it in the resignation letter that he was tendering his resignation voluntarily. The resignation letter copy of which is Ex.D.1 was forwarded by the Lines Officer, Police Lines, Ambala City. It was not the case of the appellant that the then Lines Officer was also inimical to him and he was instrumental in administering a threat or he demanded any gala party with drinks from him.

However, it seems that since the plaintiff had himself made a request for acceptance of the resignation w.e.f. 1.12.1989, therefore, his resignation was accepted w.e.f. 1.12.1989 by Supdt. of Police, Ambala, vide order dated 1.12.1989, copy of which is Ex.D.3. It is not conceivable that the Lines Officer of Police Lines, Ambala City, C.R.C. Head Constable Sudarshan Kumar and Superintendent of Police all colluded with each other and obtained the resignation letter from the plaintiff on 1.12.1989 from back date i.e. 25.9.1989.1 do not find any infringement of Punjab Police Rules in the acceptance of the resignation of the plaintiff because the resignation of the plaintiff was accepted after more than two months of making the same. A resignation of a subordinate Police Official can be accepted by the Superintendent of Police and it is immaterial if same was not put in the orderly room. It is also immaterial if defendants-respondents have not produced the daily receipt register and dak register of the police lines or office of Suptd. of Police. The plaintiff did not examine even a single official of the Police department who could come and say that Head Constable Sudarshan Kumar threatened the plaintiff that he would be dismissed/terminated from the service and he pressurised the plaintiff to submit a resignation letter by putting a back date on the same."

During the course of argument, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant could not bring to my notice any material piece of evidence in the form of documents or oral testimony which could farther the case of the appellant. It has been specifically averred by the plaintiff in the plaint that the plaintiff was awarded commendation certificate for the good work. This fact is admitted by the defendants in their written statement, which obviously shows that as and when the plaintiff did good work during his service period, due recognition was given to such work, as such, one cannot see any reason of bias or undue pressure by the police authorities upon the appellant. The provisions of Rule 14.11. Vol.-II of Punjab Police Rules clearly show that it was at the instance of the plaintiff that his resignation was accepted with effect from 1.12.1989. What is the violation of the sub rule allegedly committed by the respondents have neither been properly pleaded nor proved. The bare reading of the plaint, which has been produced during the course of hearing, shows that no specific facts have been stated in the plaint, which could satisfy the basic ingredients of an undue influence or coercion rendering the letter of order of resignation ineffective. It is well settled principle of law that complete and definite pleadings must be averred in the plaint for alleging that a particular document was vitiated because of undue influence or coercision.

Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Variety Emporium Vs. V.R.M. Mohd. Ibrahim Naina, . There could be no dispute to the principle settled by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in this case. It was stated that where the finding is shown to be manifestly unjust, the same should be set aside. In the case in hand, both the Courts below have come to a concurrent finding of fact, upon proper appreciation of evidence. The findings arrived at are neither perverse nor so illogical that it would call for interference by this Court in a Regular Second Appeal. The Hon''ble Supreme Court of India has repeatedly held that the High Court in Regular Second Appeal should normally not disturb the concurrent finding of fact.

In this regard, reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ramanuja Naidu Vs. V. Kanniah Naidu and anothers, .

Resultantly, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.