Forfeiture of approved service with permanent effect is impermissible under Punjab Police Rules as it is not provided therein.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Namit Kumar, J. (Oral)

The instant regular second appeal has been filed by the appellants/defendants impugning the judgment and decree dated 15.02.1993 passed by learned Sub Judge IIIrd Class, Jalandhar, whereby a suit for declaration filed by the respondent/plaintiff was decreed and the judgment and decree dated 25.04.1995, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, whereby an appeal preferred by the appellants/defendants against the judgment and decree dated 15.02.1993, was dismissed. Parties to the lis are hereinafter shall be referred to by their original position in the suit.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration alleging that he joined the Punjab Armed Police, Jalandhar Cantt as Constable on 12.12.1962 and promoted as Head Constable on 22.08.1978. In the month of January, 1988 he was posted as Incharge of Security Guard in the Golf Ground in the P.A.P. Lines. On 29.01.1988, a departmental enquiry was ordered to be conducted against him on the allegations that on 27.01.1988, when Sh. Raj Kumar, Superintendent of Police, Commandant 80th Battalion P.A.P. and Sh. I.M. Mal, Superintendent of Police, Training, P.A.P. Jalandhar were still playing tennis, the plaintiff left his duty point with other security guards and he was accused of leaving his duty point and exposing the officers to security risk. The inquiry officer prepared his report and held the plaintiff guilty. Thereafter, on 19.12.1988, the Commandant 27th Battalion P.A.P. Jalandhar issued a show cause notice to the plaintiff proposing punishment of forfeiture of three years approved service with permanent effect. The plaintiff filed a detailed reply to the show cause notice, however, without considering the said reply, the Commandant 27th Battalion P.A.P. Jalandhar, vide order dated 25.01.1989 ordered the forfeiture of one year's approved service of the plaintiff with permanent effect. Aggrieved against the said order, the respondent/plaintiff filed an appeal which was rejected by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, P.A.P., Jalandhar, vide order dated 11.07.1989. The revision petition filed by the plaintiff was also dismissed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, P.A.P., Jalandhar, vide order dated 20.11.1989. Since the orders dated 25.01.1989 and 11.07.1989 were merged in the order dated 20.11.1989, therefore, the plaintiff filed a suit challenging the order dated 20.11.1989.

3. Upon notice, defendants appeared and filed written statement by raising preliminary objection that present suit is not maintainable in the present form and the plaintiff has no cause of action. On merits, it has been stated that the enquiry was conducted according to rules and no injustice has been caused to the plaintiff as the order passed is legal and valid. Replication was filed by the plaintiff in which the written statement was controverted. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :-

1. Whether order dated 20.11.89, passed by the Inspector General of Police, PAP, is void, illegal on the grounds alleged in the plaint ? OPP

2. Whether order dated 25.01.1989 passed by the Commandant is void, illegal, on the grounds mentioned in the plaint ? OPP

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

4. Whether suit in the present form is not maintainable ? OPD

5. Whether plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit ? OPD

6. Whether notice served under section 80 CPC on the defendants is invalid ? OPD

7. Relief.

4. Both the parties were given due opportunities for leading their respective evidence and learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence, decreed the suit of the plaintiff, vide judgment and decree dated 15.02.1993. Aggrieved against the said judgment, the defendants filed an appeal which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 25.04.1995 passed by learned lower appellate Court. The concluding paras of the said judgment reads as under :-

"10. xx xx xx The close s