HC Satwinder Singh vs State of Punjab and Others

Sabina, J.—Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration challenging the order dated 9.7.2003, whereby his five years approved service had been forfeited with permanent effect and order dated 17.9.2003, whereby his appeal was dismissed.

The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that he was appointed as a Constable with the defendants and had discharged his duties most effectively, honestly and diligently. A departmental enquiry was ordered against the plaintiff on the allegations that while posted in Police Line Gurdaspur, a TPM was received on 3.11.2000 that under trials lodged in the jail were required to be produced in the Courts at Hoshiarpur and Gurdaspur and proper protection police guards be deputed to escort the under trials. Plaintiff along with other police officials were deputed as protection guards on 7.11.2000 but on 9.11.2002 an information was received that under trials Salim, Raja @ Rajan, Rehman and Fajju @ Kaudu had succeeded in escaping from the police custody while being escorting back from Central Jail, Ludhiana. After the completion of enquiry proceedings, the impugned order was passed, whereby five years approved service of the plaintiff was forfeited with permanent effect. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff preferred a departmental appeal and the same was dismissed vide order dated 17.9.2003. The enquiry officer had failed to conduct the enquiry as per rules.

Defendants, in their written statement, averred that the departmental enquiry was conducted as per rules. Plaintiff was supplied with all the relevant documents. A show cause notice was issued to the plaintiff after submission of enquiry report. After considering the reply filed by the plaintiff, the impugned order dated 9.7.2003 was passed by the competent authority.

On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:-

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for? OPP.

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP

Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD

Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD

Relief.

The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 6.2.2008. Aggrieved by the same, defendants preferred an appeal and the same was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 15.5.2008 passed by Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal.

The scope of judicial review regarding interference with punishment order is very limited. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is only to see the method/manner of awarding punishment. The Court is only concerned with the procedure adopted by the Punishing Authority. If the procedure adopted by the Punishing Authority is according to rules and natural justice, then no interference with the punishment order is called for. The Civil Court cannot go into the merits of the case. In case, the finding of the Inquiry Officer is based on some evidence, then the Court cannot reappreicate the evidence or weigh the same like the Appellate Authority. So long as there is some evidence in support of the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained. Some defects in the inquiry has to be pointed out before the Civil Court can in terfere with the punishment order. Further more, if defect is pointed out then the delinquent employee has to show as to what prejudice has been caused to him on account of the said defect. It has been held in Bank of India and Another Vs. Degala Suryanarayana, that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to the departmental proceedings. The Court exercising jurisdiction of judicial review-is not to interfere with the finding of the fact arrived at in a departmental inquiry excepting in a case of mala fide or perversity. The Court cannot embark upon re-appreciating the evidence or weigh the same like an Appellate Authority. The finding recorded by the disciplinary authority was immune from interference within the limited scope of power of judicial review applicable to the Court.

In the present case, plaintiff was deputed on protection guard duty. However, under trials managed to escape from the police custody while they were being taken to Central Jail, Ludhiana. In the departmental proceedings, plaintiff was found guilty of the charge framed against him. A show cause notice was issued to the plaintiff and the plaintiff, submitted his reply to the said show cause notice. Although no presenting officer was appointed in this case but learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out as to what prejudice has been caused to the appellant. The appellant has duly participated in the inquiry proceedings. Personal hearing was also afforded to the plaintiff before passing of the impugned order. In these circumstances, learned Additional District Judge had rightly dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff.

No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.