Dismissal from service without following the mandatory provisions of Rules 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, regarding informing the District Magistrate and obtaining his decision about the investigation, is illegal and cannot be sustained.

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.

1. This second appeal preferred by the defendants is directed against the judgment and decree of both the Courts below by which the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration was decreed.

2. In brief, the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that order of dismissal from service passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala, dated 29.4.1985, order of dismissal of appeal by Deputy Inspector General of Police, PAP, Patiala Range, Patiala, dated 21.9.1985 and order of Inspector General of Police, Punjab, Chandigarh, dismissing his revision vide order dated 06.5.1986, are illegal and void being against the services rules.

3. It is alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff had joined in Punjab Police as a Constable on 15.2.1974 at Ropar and after completing his recruitment course, he was posted in District Police Force, Sangrur in the year 1978 and in District Police Force Patiala in the year 1984. In the month of April, 1984, he was posted in Police Station, Malerkotla. On 09.4.1984 at about 11.30 a.m, he was deputed for Mela duty at village Lossoi in the police party headed by Head Constable Harbhajan Singh. One Balwinder Kumar and Darbara Singh of village Lossoi were at loggers head and had an altercation on that day and in order to scare away the quarreling parties, he (plaintiff) is alleged to have fired in air which incident was enquired into by S.H.O, Malerkotla, who found him guilty and on the basis thereof, he was proceeded against departmentally on the allegation that while on duty, he took liquor and went to the house of Darshan Singh and fired from his service rifle in front of the house of Balwinder Kumar. It was alleged that he misbehaved with the Head Constable of the guard on the following morning. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sangrur, also conducted enquiry against him and found him guilty on 10.4.1984, but in the meantime, he was transferred to District Police Force, Patiala and his enquiry papers were sent to S.S.P.Patiala , who issued him a show cause notice of dismissal, to which the plaintiff had submitted his detailed reply. But vide his order dated 29.4.1985, S.S.P.Patiala, dismissed him from service.

4. The plaintiff filed appeal against the order of dismissal which was dismissed by the D.I.G., PAP, Patiala, vide his order which was received on 21.9.1985 and revision filed against that order, was dismissed by Inspector General of Police, Punjab, vide his order dated 06.5.1986.

5. In the written statement, the defendants had challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Court and had also alleged that the plaintiff was awarded two major punishments, five censures and two warnings. In addition to that, he absented himself from duty ten times during his service career. It was alleged that the enquiry has been conducted in accordance with rules and the orders passed by the competent authority are perfect and valid.

6. Replication was filed by the plaintiff, on the basis of which the following issues were framed:-

"1. Whether the impugned orders as detailed in the head notice of the plaint are void, unlawful, arbitrary etc.? OPP

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

3. Whether the Civil Court at Jalandhar has jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit? OPP

4. Whether the plaintiff had served a valid and legal notice U/s 80 CPC before filing the present suit? OPP

5. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPP

6. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPP

7. Relief."

7. The learned trial Court decided issue Nos.1 and 2 together in favour of the plaintiffin which it was held that the enquiry has been conducted in violation of Rules 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 , (for short the Rules).

8. Both the Courts below have given concurrent findings in this regard, but still aggrieved, the State of Punjab, has filed the present appeal which was admitted on 18.8.1994.

9. Though in the grounds of appe