Departmental inquiry and punishment upheld as misconduct did not constitute a criminal offense under Punjab Police Rules, 1934.

JUDGMENT

Namit Kumar, J.

This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 22.09.1998, passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Kamal, whereby judgment and decree dated 31.01.1998, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kamal, was reversed and suit of the appellant-plaintiff was dismissed.

2. Parties to the lis are being referred to as per their status before the trial Court. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration pleading therein that summary of allegations was served upon them on the allegations that on 22.04.1993 they without obtaining leave or any permission had gone to local cinema to watch movie. They were not having the tickets and in turn on being checked, picked up a fight with Nafe Singh, gate keeper, of the cinema, physically man-handled him. They also abused and gave beatings to Lok Raj, owner of the cinema. Jai Singh, DSP was appointed as Inquiry officer who after conducting inquiry, established the charges against the plaintiffs and submitted his report on 29.06.1993 and on the basis of the said inquiiy report, S.P. Commando of Haryana served a show cause notice dated 30.06.1993 purposing to stop two future annual increments with permanent effect. It is further averred that the plaintiffs submitted reply to the show cause notice, however, the punishing authority without considering the reply inflicted punishment of stoppage of one future increment with permanent effect and the pay and allowances of the suspension period were restricted to the subsistence allowance already drawn, vide order dated 31.07.1993. It is further averred that the plaintiffs went in appeal against the said order and appeal was also dismissed by D.I.G. Police, Railway and Commando Haiyana vide order dated 12.07.1996. Revision petition of the plaintiffs was also dismissed by the Director General of police, Haiyana, Chandigarh, vide order dated 05.08.1996. It was prayed that the aforesaid orders passed by the authorities were illegal, arbitrary, against the rules of natural justice, void ab initio and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs. The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 31.01.1998 decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, defendant preferred an appeal, which was allowed and judgment and decree of the trial Court was set aside. Hence, the present Regular Second Appeal by the plaintiffs.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the lower appellate Court has erred in reversing the well-reasoned judgment and decree of the trial Court. He further contended that the lower appellate Court failed to appreciate that departmental proceedings conducted against the appellants-plaintiffs were without jurisdiction and authority as in contravention of provisions of Rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 prior sanction of the District Magistrate was not obtained. He contended that judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court is perverse and liable to be set aside. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in RSA No.3428 of 2011 - HC Rakesh Kumar v. Stale of Haryana - decided on 12.10.2015.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent-State supported the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court. He contended that in the case of the plaintiffs, no prior permission of District Magistrate was required, therefore, there is no violation of Rule 16.38 of the Rules, therefore, judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court does not call for any interference. He further submitted that appellants No.l and 2, namely, Ved Parkash and Shiv Kumar have already been promoted to the post of Inspector and appellant No.3 - Kiran Pal was promoted as ASI and has been dismissed from service on 31.12.2013.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. The present appeal was admitted on 28.08.2000.

7. The only question