Manohar Lal Vs Pb.St.

The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff-Manohar Lal, however, during its pendency, he died on 25.09.2010 and thereafter on 06.07.2011, by way of application bearing CM No. 1847-C of 2011, his legal representatives were ordered to be impleaded so as to pursue the appeal.

¶15

[2] By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment and decree dated 30.01.1999 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar (hereinafter referred to as “First Appellate Court”) , whereby the decreetal of suit for declaration filed at the instance of plaintiff was reversed. For the sake of convenience, the parties are being referred to as per their status in the Civil Suit.

¶16

DINESH KUMAR 2026.07.22 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

RSA No. 3298 of 1999 (O&M)

¶18

-2-

¶19

[3] The plaintiff instituted the suit with the following prayer:-

¶20

“ Suit for declaration to the effect that the order No. 260612/ST, dated 20.05.1993 passed by the Commandant, 7^th Bn. P.A.P., Jalandhar Cantt. whereby the plaintiff was dismissed from service is illegal and void, unlawful and unconstitutional, arbitrary, capricious, null, wanton, discriminatory and malafide, against the provisions of law, service rules and rules of natural justice, unjust and improper, ineffective and is, therefore, not binding on him and that he continue to serve the department as Constable as before 20.5.93 and is entitled to all rights privileges and other service benefits attached to that post.”

¶21

According to the plaintiff, he joined as Constable on 07.08.1989 in P.A.P. at Jalandhar Cantt. Having completed recruits course, he was inducted as a full-fledged Constable in 13^th Battalion, P.A.P., Jalandhar Cantt; and thereafter transferred to the 7^th Battalion, P.A.P., Jalandhar Cantt. It was averred in the suit that the plaintiff was an under Matric with a good physique; therefore, the DIG, P.A.P., Chairman of the Selection Committee, gave him relaxation in his educational qualification on account of his good physique; however, the plaintiff did not produce any valid educational certificate in support of his qualifications. Upon verification of the alleged Matric certificate, it was reported by the Punjab School Education Board that the said certificate was forged as the Roll No. 220247 to which the alleged matriculation certificate pertained, was never issued to any candidate for matriculation examination in March, 1984. Consequently, on 19.10.1992, the plaintiff was suspended, however, vide order dated 24.12.1992, he was reinstated without prejudice to the departmental enquiry pending against him. Upon findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Commandant 7^th Battalion, PAP, Jalandhar Cantt., issued a show

¶22

DINESH KUMAR 2026.07.22 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

RSA No. 3298 of 1999 (O&M) -3-

¶24

cause notice of dismissal to the plaintiff, to which he filed a detailed reply claiming innocence. Ultimately, vide Order No. 2606-12, ST dated 20.05.1993, the Commandant 7^th Battalion, PAP, Jalandhar Cantt., dismissed the plaintiff from service and ordered that he shall not be entitled to receive any arrears of pay and allowances for the suspension period from 14.10.1992 to 22.12.1992. The plaintiff challenged the said order claiming that he did not produce any educational certificate at the time of his enrollment and his educational qualification was relaxed by the DIG of Police-cum-Chairman of the Selection Committee. The plaintiff further pleaded that he was not supplied copies of necessary documents and was not allowed to crossexamine the witnesses produced by the department in the enquiry. It was also pleaded that since the plaintiff was appointed by the committee headed by the DIG of Police-cum-Punishing Authority, therefore, the Commandant who is subordinate in rank than DIG of Police, was not competent to pass the impugned order. Hence, the suit was filed.

¶25

[4] Upon notice, the defendants appeared; filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections; and on merits, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

¶26

[5] Replication was filed by the plaintiff denying the allegations made in the written statement. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:-

¶27

“(1) Whether the order dated 20.05.1993, passed by the Commandant 7^th Bn. P.A.P., Jalandhar Cantt., is illegal and void? OPP

¶28

(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for? OPP

¶29

(3) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is premature? OPD

¶30

DINESH KUMAR 2026.07.22 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶31

RSA No. 3298 of 1999 (O&M)

¶32

-4-

¶33

(4) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

¶34

(5) Whether no legal and void notice has been served on the defendant? OPD

¶35

(6) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD

¶36

(7) Relief. ”

¶37

[6] The learned Sub Judge, III Class, Jalandhar (hereinafter referred to as “trial Court”) , vide its judgment and decree dated 31.08.1995, decreed the suit filed at the instance of appellant-plaintiff.

¶38

[7] Aggrieved against the same, the respondents-defendants filed the first appeal, which came to be allowed vide judgment and decree dated 30.01.1999 passed by the learned First Appellate Court, while reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court.

¶39

CONTENTION(S) :

¶40

ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT-PLAINTIFF

¶41

[8] Impugning the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 30.01.1999 passed by the learned First Appellate Court, learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff submits that once it was admitted by the respondentsdefendants that an application form No. 13216 was submitted by the plaintiff preceding his appointment as Constable, the respondent-Department was required to produce the same so as to establish the matriculation certificate allegedly appended along with the application form which was actually furnished by the plaintiff. He thus submits that once, the material documentary evidence was withheld by the respondents-defendants, an adverse inference was required to be drawn against them and that no such bogus matriculation certificate, as alleged by the respondents-defendants,

¶42

DINESH KUMAR 2026.07.22 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶43

RSA No. 3298 of 1999 (O&M) -5-

¶44

was ever furnished by the appellant-plaintiff. It was further contended that the learned First Appellate Court also failed to appreciate that the appellantplaintiff was recruited by D.I.G and thus the Commandant was not a competent authority to pass the order of dismissal. It has thus been argued that the judgment and decree dated 30.01.1999 passed by the learned First Appellate Court was liable to be set aside.

¶45

No other argument has been raised.

¶46

ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT(S)-STATE OF PUNJAB

¶47

[9] On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-State of Punjab points out that the appellant-plaintiff never assailed the validity of the Enquiry Report, while having had the remedy of statutory appeal available to him. He submits that once by way of Enquiry Report, it was duly established on record that bogus matriculation certificate was produced by the plaintiff to secure the benefit of appointment, no further evidence was required to be led in support before the learned trial Court; the jurisdiction before the Civil Court on the challenge to the order of dismissal is limited. Learned State Counsel thus submits that the judgment and decree dated 30.01.1999 passed by the learned First Appellate Court based on proper appreciation of the material evidence available on record, calls for no interference and the present appeal was liable to be dismissed.

¶48

No other point has been addressed.

¶49

DISCUSSION AND REASONING

¶50

[10] Having heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records, I am unable to find substance in the submission(s) made on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff.

¶51

DINESH KUMAR 2026.07.22 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶52

RSA No. 3298 of 1999 (O&M) -6-

¶53

[11] As regards the finding of the learned First Appellate Court that the respondent-plaintiff was appointed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police and, therefore, the Commandant was not competent to dismiss him, this Court finds no reason to interfere. Rule 12.1 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 unequivocally provides that the appointing authority for Head Constables and Constables is the Superintendent of Police/Commandant. Admittedly, the respondent-plaintiff failed to produce any appointment letter or departmental record to establish that he had been appointed by the Deputy Inspector General or the Inspector General of Police. In the absence of such documentary evidence, no reliance could be placed on the oral testimony of DW-1, Harnek Singh that the order regarding recruitment of constable was passed by the Inspector General of Police. Infact, DW-1 has himself admitted that the formal order of recruitment was passed by the Commandant. Since the specific plea regarding appointment by the Deputy Inspector General had been denied in the written statement, the burden laid upon the respondent-plaintiff to prove the same, which he failed to discharge. The finding of the learned First Appellate Court on this aspect is, therefore, affirmed.

¶54

[12] Further, in the humble opinion of this Court, no merit can be found in the submission made on behalf of the appellant that, since Application Form No. 13216 allegedly submitted by him was not produced by the respondent-defendants despite being in their custody, an adverse inference ought to have been drawn against it. The said contention is wholly misconceived. In the present case, a regular departmental enquiry was conducted into the charge that the appellant had secured appointment as a

¶55

DINESH KUMAR 2026.07.22 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶56

RSA No. 3298 of 1999 (O&M)

¶57

-7-

¶58

Constable by submitting a bogus matriculation certificate bearing Roll No. 220247. The enquiry was held strictly in accordance with the applicable Service Rules and the principles of natural justice. The findings of the Enquiry Officer were founded on the testimonies of defense witnesses. Despite having been afforded adequate opportunity, the appellant neither cross-examined those witnesses nor led any evidence to dispute the allegation regarding submission of the bogus matriculation certificate. Consequently, the evidence led by the Department remained unrebutted and the charge stood duly established. Having failed to challenge the departmental evidence at the appropriate stage, the appellant cannot now seek to raise substantive objections on the basis of non-production of the application form.

¶59

[13] Moreover, the appellant's consistent stand was that he had been granted relaxation in the educational qualification by the Deputy Inspector General of Police owing to his good physique, thus onus laid upon him to substantiate his stand by producing relevant record to that effect or getting the same produced from the respondent-defendants however, no such documentary evidence was sought to be summoned or produced to substantiate the said plea.

¶60

[14] In addition, in the entire plaint, the appellant-plaintiff never chose to question the validity of the enquiry report, which conclusively recorded that the matriculation certificate with Roll No. 220247 in the name of appellant-plaintiff was produced by him at the time of submission of his application for appointment and the same was found to be bogus. Thus, in the absence of any challenge laid to the said enquiry report, the plaintiff was

¶61

DINESH KUMAR 2026.07.22 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶62

RSA No. 3298 of 1999 (O&M) -8-

¶63

not entitled to question the same at this stage by way of present Regular Second Appeal. Moreso, once no statutory appeal against the order of dismissal dated 20.05.1993 was ever filed by the appellant-plaintiff and there was even no challenge laid to the enquiry report submitted by the respondents-defendants, the scope for judicial interference in the order of punishment passed by the competent authority becomes limited; and extends only to examining whether the departmental proceedings suffered from any violation of the principles of natural justice or the applicable statutory Rules and Regulations. In the present case, no such procedural or legal infirmity has been shown to exist.

¶64

[15] In view of the discussion made hereinabove, finding no illegality or perversity with the findings of the fact recorded by learned First Appellate Court, there being no misreading or misinterpretation of the pleadings and the evidence available on record; the present appeal being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed .

¶65

[16] Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.

¶66

July 14, 2026 ( HARKESH MANUJA ) 'dk kamra' JUDGE

¶67

Whether Speaking/reasoned	Yes
Whether Reportable	Yes

¶68

DINESH KUMAR 2026.07.22 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Manohar Lal v. Pb.St.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manohar Lal v. Pb.St.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amanpreet Kaur Vs Ashvinder Kaur and Others

Jyoti Vs Mohit Mann

State of Punjab and etc. Vs Mansa Ram

Parneet Kaur Vs Kulwinder Singh

Jagdeep Singh Vs Kulwinder Singh and Another

Musadi Lal Garg & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Anr.