Back
NAMIT KUMAR
Ved Parkash – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
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
Departmental inquiry and punishment upheld as misconduct did not constitute a criminal offense under Punjab Police Rules, 1934.
The dismissal of a police constable for alleged bigamy was upheld as valid, with the inquiry conducted in accordance with the rules, and no substantial question of law arose for consideration.
The inquiry officer's failure to adhere to procedural rules invalidated the punishment order, necessitating remand for a fresh inquiry rather than reinstatement.
The court upheld the dismissal of the plaintiff as valid due to the lack of a timely appeal and the nature of the allegations against him, affirming the importance of adhering to statutory limitation....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of Rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules, requiring prior concurrence of the District Magistrate before initiating disciplinary....
The court upheld the validity of the departmental inquiry, emphasizing adherence to procedural rules and the principle that courts should not interfere with factual findings unless they are perverse.
High court cannot sit in appeal and examine the reasons assigned by the authority and confirmed by the appellate as well as revisional authority.
Forfeiture of approved service is invalid if absence is treated as leave without pay, violating natural justice principles.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
