Punjab State and Another vs Jasbir Kumar

Mahesh Grover, J.—This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgments and decrees dated 20.1.2007 and 31.10.2007 passed respectively by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar (described hereinafter as `the trial Court'') and Additional District Judge, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as `the First Appellate Court'') whereby the suit of the plaintiff-respondent was decreed and the appeal of the defendants-appellants was dismissed.

The respondent had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the order bearing endorsement No. 1628-33/ST dated 22.12.1997 passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Majitha, District Amritsar (appellant No. 2) vide which his two years approved service was forfeited with permanent effect, is totally wrong, unwarranted, without jurisdiction, against the provisions of the Punjab Police Rules,1934 (for short, `the Rules''), null & void and not binding on his rights. A further prayer was also made for issuance of mandatory injunction directing the appellants to fix/ re-fix his pay by allowing the reduced earned increments and due increments with all the arrears and interest thereon at the rate of 18% per annum from the due date till the date of actual payment.

It was pleaded case of the respondent that he had joined the service of the appellants as a Constable in the year 1993. He remained absent from duty with effect from 21.5.1997 to 22.7.1997 which invited the impugned order whereby his two years service was forfeited with permanent effect. It was further pleaded that he was not given proper opportunity of being heard before passing the impugned order which is totally erroneous and contrary to the Rules. It was averred that the requisite documents which were necessary for cross-examining the witnesses produced at the time of departmental enquiry were not supplied to him and this has occasioned serious prejudice to him. It was further averred that he remained confined to bed because of jaundice and his absence was neither intentional nor willful. He also pleaded that the findings of the enquiry officer were erroneous and the punishment awarded is beyond the scope of the Rules.

Upon notice, the appellants had appeared and filed written statement contesting the suit. It was pleaded that the respondent had unauthorisedly remained absent from duty and, therefore, he was proceeded against departmentally and proper enquiry was held. It was further pleaded that the punishment was awarded under the provisions of the Rules and that if the case of the respondent was that he was ailing, then he could have got his leave sanctioned in accordance with law, but the same was never done.

The parties went to trial on the following issues:

Whether the order Endst. No. 1628-33/ST dt. 22.12.1997 passed by defendantno.2 is illegal,null and void?OPP

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

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

Whether the suit is barred by limitation?OPD

Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD

Relief.

After appraisal of the entire evidence on record, the trial Court concluded that according to the provisions of Rule 16.5 of the Rules, the forfeiture of two years service is only for the purpose of increments and the impact of such an order cannot prejudicially affect the period of service of the respondent. The suit was accordingly decreed.

In appeal, the findings recorded by the trial Court were affirmed by the First Appellate Court.

This has resulted in filing of the present appeal by the appellants.

Learned Counsel for the appellants contended that according to Rule 16.5 of the Rules and the judgment of this Court rendered in C.W.P. No. 19730 of 2004 - Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors. decided on 14.9.2006, the findings recorded by the Courts below are erroneous and deserve to be set aside. He argued that the judgment reported as Punjab State v. Joginder Singh 1992 (3) S.C.T. 671 on which the Courts below have placed reliance has categorically been over-ruled by the judgment in Ranjit Singh''s case (supra).

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent has argued that the Rules are unambiguous in nature and contemplate that the forfeiture of service is for the purpose of grant of increments and for no other purpose. He also referred to the aforesaid judgment to substantiate his point.

I have thoughtfully considered the rival contentions and have perused the record.

The question of law that arises for determination in this appeal is as under:

Whether under Rule 16.5 of the Punjab Police Rules, the forfeiture of service is only for the purpose of increment or it implies that the service has to be forfeited?" Rule 16.5 of the Rules is reproduced below:

16.5 Stoppage of increments. (for Punjab - or Forfeiture of approved service for increment).- The increment of a police officer on a time scale may be withheld as a punishment. The order must state definitely the period for which the increment is withheld, and whether the postponement shall have the effect of postponing future increments. The detailed orders regarding the grant and stoppage of increments are contained in Rule 13.2.

2.Approved service for increment may be forfeited, either temporarily or permanently, and such forfeiture may entail the deferment of an increments or a reduction in pay. The order must state whether the forfeiture of approved service is to be permanent; or, if not, the period for which it has been forfeited.

Reinstatement on the expiry of a period fixed under Sub-rule (1) or (2) above shall be conditional upon good conduct in the interval, but if it is desired under this rule not to reinstate an officer, a separate order shall be recorded, after the officer concerned has been given opportunity to show cause why his reinstatement should not be deferred, and the period for which such order shall have effect shall be stated. Rules regarding the method of recording punishment under this rule in seniority rules are contained in Chapter X.

A reading of the above quoted provisions reveals that the same are unambiguous for the reason that this rule talks of increments and forfeiture of service necessarily has to be read in terms of increments only. In the judgment on which reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the appellants, it has been held as under:

It is apparent from a perusal of Rule 16.5(2) of the 1934 Rules, that it is open to the punishing authority to forfeit approved service for increments. This is exactly the punishment inflicted on the petitioner.

In view of the above, it is not possible for us to accept that the punishment imposed on the petitioner, does not flow from the provisions of the 1934 Rules. It is, therefore, not possible for us to accept the sole contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

For the aforesaid reason that Rule 16.5 of the Rules is unambiguous, no other interpretation can be assigned to it.

Consequently, the question formulated above is answered against the appellants and in favour of the respondent.

The appeal is held to be devoid of any merit and is dismissed accordingly.