The Punjab State vs Kashmira Singh (Died) through L.Rs.

Iqbal Singh, J.—The question which arises for determination in this Regular Second Appeal is whether the punishment imposed upon respondent Kashmira Singh (since deceased and represented by his legal heirs) is in consonance with the provisions of Rule 16.2. of Chapter XVI of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules).

The following facts maybe noticed:-

Respondent Kashmira Singh joined service in the Police Department as Constable on 11.11.1957 and was posted with the Punjab Armed Police in the year 1977. He was actually posted as P.A.P. Guard, C&D No. 5, Rajasansi in District Amritsar. The allegation against him is that on 27.4.1977, he was found performing the relief duty as Sentry in plaint clothes and in sitting position. He was charge sheeted and an enquiry was held. Ultimately, he was dismissed from service vide order dated 14.14.1977. Respondent Kashmira Singh challenged this order by way of filing a suit for declaration to the effect that the order dated 14.10.1977 passed by the Commandant, 80th Battalion, P.A.P. Jalandhar, is arbitrary, in contravention of the rules, mala fide, illegal and inoperative against him and that he is entitled to the pay and privileges as were admissible to him before his dismissal from service. The suit was contested.

On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues besides that of relief:-

"1. Whether the impugned order dismissing the plaintiff from service is illegal, arbitrary, void etc. as alleged in the plaint? OPP.

Whether the notice served u/s 80, C.P.C. was not valid? OPD."

Issue No. 1 was decided against the plaintiff. Issue No. 2 was not pressed and was, accordingly, answered in favour of the plaintiff. In view of its findings on issue No. 1, the trail Court dismissed the suit filed by plaintiff-respondent Kashmira Singh vide its judgment and decree dated 30.8.1980. Aggrieved against the said judgment, the plaintiff went in appeal before the lower appellate Court. The Additional District Judge, Amritsar, vide his judgment and decree dated 1.6.1982, accepted the appeal filed by the plaintiff, set aside the judgment and decree- passed by the trial Court and decreed the suit of the plaintiff with costs throughout. Hence this Regular Second Appeal by the State.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that there is no merit in this appeal. It is not disputed that the enquiry against the plaintiff was first entrusted to Deputy Superintendent of Police Harcharan Singh. However, the report was submitted by Deputy Superintendent of Police Jaswant Singh. There is nothing in the record to show how this enquiry came in the hands of Deputy Superintendent of Police Jaswant Singh, on whose report the impugned order dismissing the plaintiff-respondent Kashmira Singh from service was based. It has rightly been held by the lower appellate Court that the report submitted by Deputy Superintendent of Police Jaswant Singh was illegal and without jurisdiction and the order of dismissal based on such a report stands vitiated.

The punishment of dismissal imposed upon the plaintiff-respondent was not in consonance with the provisions of Rule 16.2 of the Rules, which, for facility of reference, is reproduced hereunder:-

"16.2. Dismissal.- Dismissal shall be awarded only for the gravest acts of misconduct or as the cumulative effect of continued misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police service. In making such an award regard shall be had to the length of service of the offender and his claim to pension."

(2) xx xx xx xx xx"

A perusal of the above Rule reveals that punishment of dismissal from service can be awarded only for the gravest acts of misconduct and in making such an award regard shall be had to the length of service of the delinquent. The allegations against the plaintiff-respondent are of very trivial nature i.e. he was found performing the relief duty as Sentry in plain clothes and in sitting capacity. An employee having 22 years of service to his credit cannot be dealt with in so severe a manner as has been done in the present case. Dismissal from service is too harsh a punishment for such a minor lapse.

For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.