Back
2010 Supreme(P&H) 3083
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Gurdev Singh, J.
Sh.Gopi Chand
Versus
State Of Punjab
Regular Second Appeal No. 3039 of 1987,
Decided On : NOVEMBER 18, 2010
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Rule 11(1) of the Jail Rules in the context of imposing the punishment of dismissal from service.
Headnote:
Jail Rules - Dismissal from Service - Rule 11(1) - Summary of Acts and Sections: Punjab Jail Department Executive Staff (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1943 - The court discussed the application of Rule 11(1) of the Jail Rules, which outlines the procedure for imposing the punishment of dismissal from service. The interpretation of the rule and its violation formed a key part of the court's decision.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit challenging his dismissal from service, claiming that the orders were illegal and against the principles of natural justice and service Rules and Regulations. The defendants contested the suit, alleging serious misconduct by the plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, but the first Appellate Court dismissed the suit. The second appeal was accepted, and the judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court were set aside, restoring the decision of the trial Court.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the dismissal from service, jurisdiction of the civil Court, and misjoinder of parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court focused on the violation of Rule 11(1) of the Jail Rules, emphasizing the requirement for conducting an enquiry and the plaintiff's right to defend himself. The court found that the impugned orders were passed against the mandatory provisions of the Jail Rules, leading to the setting aside of the first Appellate Court's decision.
Final Decision: The second appeal was accepted, and the judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court were set aside, restoring the decision of the trial Court.
Gurdev Singh, J.
1. The appellant-plaintiff-Gopi Chand filed suit for declaration to the effect that the order dated 18.6.1981 passed by Superintendent Jail, Ferozepur and the order dated 16.6.1982 passed by the Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab, Chandigarh in the appeal are illegal, ultravires, unconstitutional, mala fide, null and void, against the principles of natural justice and service Rules and Regulations and that he continues to be in service, as if those orders have not been passed, with all the rights, benefits and privelleges attached to the post which he was holding at the time of the said dismissal. The suit was decreed by Sub Judge, Ist Class, Moga, vide judgment and decree dated 7.1.1985. The respondents/defendants preferred an appeal against that judgment and decree, which was accepted by Additional District Judge, Faridkot, vide judgment and decree dated 24.2.1987 and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. Now, he has preferred this second appeal against that judgment and decree.
2. The case of the plaintiff, as pleaded in the plaint, is that he was a complainant in the criminal case against one Mangal Singh, Superintendent Treasury Officer, Jalandhar, registered under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 161 of the IPC. In that case Mangal Singh was acquitted by giving the benefit of doubt. The charge-sheet was served upon him and he submitted his reply to that charge-sheet. Subsequently, show cause notice was served, which was also duly replied by him. Thereafter, he was dismissed from service, vide order dated 18.6.1981 passed by Superintendent Jail, Ferozepur. He filed an appeal before Inspector General of Prisons, Punjab, Chandigarh, which was dismissed vide order dated 16.6.1982. Both those orders are illegal, ultravires, unconstitutional, null and void against the principles of natural justice and service Rules and Regulations, inter alia, on the following grounds:-
i) no enquiry was conducted under the Punjab Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal), Rules;
ii) prosecution did not produce any evidence against him nor he was allowed to lead any evidence;
iii) the statement given by him in the Court as a witness was used against him. The authorities pre-judged his guilt while issuing the charge-sheet and the show cause notice with a biased mind. The procedure adopted was unknown to law.
3. The suit was contested by the defendants. In their written statement they admitted that at the instance of the plaintiff criminal case of corruption was registered against Mangal Singh, in which the plaintiff appeared as a witness and Mangal Singh was acquitted. They also admitted that the charge-sheet and the show cause notice were so served upon the plaintiff and he was dismissed from services and that the appeal filed by him against the order was dismissed. They denied the other contentions made in the plaint and pleaded that the plaintiff was entrusted with the duty of getting the bills passed from Sub Treasury. On 30.8.1978, he presented two bills of G.P. Fund of the jail warders for Rs.400A and Rs.500/-, respectively, before Mangal Singh. For getting the same passed that Mangal Singh demanded Rs. 20/- and the plaintiff recovered a sum of Rs.10 each from the warders, concerned and then approached the Vigilance Inspector. During the trial the palintiff was won over by Mangal Singh and he resiled from the statement made by him before the Vigilance Inspector with the intention to save that Mangal Singh. On account of that statement made by the plaintiff the case failed in the Court. There was absolutely no ground with him to lodge the complaint with the Vigilance Department in case Mangal Singh had given Rs.65/- to him for purchase of Ghee and he was to return the balance amount of Rs.20/-, as stated by him before the criminal Court. This act of the plaintiff in resiling from his previous statement amounted to serious mis-conduct for which the charge
