Dismissed

Suresh Chander v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Feb 2012RSA/1804/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Justice Tejinder Singh Dhindsa allowed condonation of 165 days delay in filing a second appeal regarding departmental punishment. The appeal was subsequently dismissed as it lacked merit, being limited to reviewing the decision-making process which was found legal.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 165 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. The second appeal is dismissed.

Suresh Chander Vs State of Haryana & Ors. — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

C.M. No. 5066-C of 2011 & RSA No. 1804 of 2011 Date of Decision: 10.2.2012.

Suresh Chander

--Appellant

Versus

State of Haryana & others

¶7

--Respondents

¶8

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.

¶9

Present:Dr. Suresh Kumar Redhu, Advocate for the appellant.

¶10

¶11

TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.J

¶12

C.M. No. 5066-C of 2011

¶13

This is an application under Section 151 C.P.C for condonation of 165 days in re-filing the appeal.

¶14

For the reasons stated in the application, same is allowed. Delay of 165 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. RSA No. 1804 of 2011

¶15

The plaintiff-appellant is in second appeal before this Court having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below.

¶16

The plaintiff-appellant instituted a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction pleading that the order dated 10.12.1999, issued by the Superintendent of Police, Sonepat imposing the punishment of stoppage of two future annual increments as illegal, void and against the principles of natural justice. Likewise, declaration was also sought in respect of orders dated 9.1.2001 and 1.9.2005 passed by the Inspector General of Police, Rohtak Range, Rohtak and the Director General of Police, Haryana, whereby the appeal as also the revision preferred by the plaintiff-appellant

¶17

RSA No. 1804 of 2011 -2-

¶18

against the basic order of punishment had been rejected. The plaintiffappellant also prayed for the consequential relief of mandatory injunction for restoration of the two annual increments. It was pleaded that the plaintiff-appellant was serving as a Head Constable with Haryana Police and was posted in District Sonepat in the year 1999. On the intervening night of 11/12.6.1999 the plaintiff-appellant was deputed for duty at Atlas Road, Sonepat and he was performing his duties with complete care and on account of a conspiracy hatched by the S.H.O., Police Station, City, Sonepat in connivance with certain other police officers a false allegation had been levelled against him of having consumed liquor on duty. It was pleaded that in furtherance of such conspiracy against him a departmental inquiry had also been instituted and which had ultimately culminated in the passing of the order of punishment of stoppage of two annual increments. The defendants filed a joint written statement stating that the plaintiff-appellant had been noticed in a drunken state on the intervening night of 11/12.6.1999 while on duty and he had accordingly been placed under suspension and a regular departmental inquiry had been ordered by the Superintendent of Police, Sonepat on 12.6.1999 itself. Such inquiry had been conducted by the D.S.P., Gohana. The principles of natural justice had been observed and upon holding a regular inquiry, findings have been returned on 17.11.1999 holding the plaintiff-appellant guilty of the charge framed against him. The Superintendent of Police, Sonepat having agreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer had issued a show cause notice to the plaintiff-appellant on 19.11.1999 to which a written reply had been submitted on 10.12.1999. Even an opportunity of personal hearing had been afforded to the plaintiffappellant and it was only thereafter that the punishment of stoppage of two

¶19

RSA No. 1804 of 2011

¶20

-3-

¶21

annual increments with permanent effect had been imposed. As such, it was pleaded that the basic order of punishment passed by the Superintendent of Police, Sonepat dated 10.12.1999 and duly affirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities were perfectly legal and tenable in law.

¶22

Upon the pleadings of the parties, following crucial issue was

¶23

framed by the Trial Court:-

¶24

“1. Whether the orders passed by the defendants dated 10.12.1999, 9.1.2001 and 1.9.2005 are illegal, arbitrary, null and void and liable to be set aside on the grounds mentioned in the plaint?OPP.”

¶25

The Trial Court vide judgement and decree dated 7.12.2009 dismissed the suit. Even the civil appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellant has been dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Sonepat vide impugned judgement dated 27.2.2010.

¶26

I have heard Dr. Suresh Kumar Redhu, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-appellant at length.

¶27

I find that the present second appeal is wholly devoid of merit and deserves to fail for the reasons recorded herein after.

¶28

It is now well settled that the scope of judicial review with respect to orders of punishment passed against an employee is limited to the decision making process and not against the decision itself. Interference with an order imposing a penalty of stoppage of two annual increments as is the case in hands would be permissible only if, the plaintiff-appellant had been able to demonstrate that the procedure adopted by the Inquiry Officer during the course of the inquiry proceedings suffered from any procedural irregularity and illegality. It has been noticed by both the courts below that a complete process pertaining to departmental proceedings had been

¶29

RSA No. 1804 of 2011

¶30

-4-

¶31

initiated and concluded against the plaintiff-appellant. A specific charge had been framed against the plaintiff-appellant of having been found to have consumed liquor while on duty as a member of the disciplined police force. Towards establishing such charge an officer of the rank of D.S.P had been entrusted the inquiry. The inquiry findings had been returned against the plaintiff-appellant. Agreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer the Superintendent of Police, Sonepat had issued a show cause notice to which the plaintiff-appellant had duly submitted his reply. Even an opportunity of personal hearing had been afforded and it is only thereafter that the order of punishment of stoppage of two annual increments had been imposed. Even the statutory remedies of filing the appeal and revision have been exhausted by the plaintiff-appellant. It was not his case that adequate opportunity had not been granted to him or that there had been any bias at the hands of the Inquiry Officer against him. In the light of such facts, the findings of the courts below in dismissing his suit seeking declaration in respect of an order of punishment do not warrant any interference. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has not been able to show any mis-appreciation or misreading of evidence so as to contend perversity of findings so recorded.

¶32

No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in the present second appeal.

¶33

For the reasons recorded above, the present second appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶34

Appeal dismissed.

¶35

(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE

¶36

10.2.2012. lucky

¶37

Whether to be reported? Yes.

Suresh Chander v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Chander v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rachan Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Darshan Singh Vs Joginder Singh

Ved Pal and Ors. Vs HUDA and Ors.

Maldev Rangi Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Jiyu and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Satbir Singh Vs Inder Lal and Ors.