Forfeiture of approved service is invalid if absence is treated as leave without pay, violating natural justice principles.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Namit Kumar, J.

The instant appeal has been preferred by the State of Punjab impugning the judgment and decree dated 03.05.1993, whereby learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, while dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants/State upheld the judgment and decree dated 29.04.1992 passed by learned Sub Judge II Class, Gurdaspur, whereby the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff was decreed in his favour. Parties to the lis, hereinafter, shall be referred to by their original position in the suit.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-Gian Singh filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the impugned order dated 02.11.1987, passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Gurdaspur (defendant No.2), whereby two years approved service of the plaintiff was forfeited along with forfeiture of pay and the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority, whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiff against order dated 02.11.1987 was rejected by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jalandhar Range, Jalandhar Cantt. It was pleaded in the suit that the plaintiff was appointed in Punjab Police on permanent basis and while he was serving as Sub-Inspector in District Gurdaspur, he was served with charge-sheet containing certain allegations to the effect that he was involved in some criminal case and gross negligence, carelessness and dereliction of duty. He denied the said allegations and stated that he had reported on duty on 21.08.1987 instead of 16.08.1987. Thereafter, an inquiry was conducted against him which culminated in passing of the order dated 02.11.1987, whereby his two years approved service was forfeited along with forfeiture of pay during the suspension period. He preferred an appeal against the impugned order dated 02.11.1987, which was also rejected by the Appellate Authority. He challenged impugned order as well as appellate order as illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional against the principles of natural justice and null and void on the grounds that the charge sheet and show cause notice issued to him were illegal and without jurisdiction, his reply was not considered, copies of documents were not supplied to him, he was not permitted to have assistance of a co-worker and was not allowed to cross examine the departmental witnesses, judicial mind to the facts of case was not applied, impugned orders are non-speaking, behaviour of enquiry officer was biased towards him, impugned orders are ultra vires the authority of defendant no.2 as well as appellate authority impugned orders were passed in breach of P.P.R., version of defence witnesses was not considered by enquiry officer, departmental evidence produced by him was not taken into consideration and impugned orders are nonest and ex facie defective. After service of notice under section 80 CPC upon defendants, the plaintiff preferred this suit.

3. Notice of suit was issued to the defendants and they came forward to contest the suit by filing joint written statement, wherein they have taken preliminary objections of want of necessary parties and want of cause of action. On merits, defendants admitted the employment of plaintiff, infliction of punishment upon him vide impugned order as well as appellate order. Defendants also admitted the receipt of notice under section 80 CPC but disputed its legality and validity. Rest of allegations of plaint were denied in to to.

4. Plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of defendants wherein he denied the case of defendants and reiterated his case put forth in plaint. From the pleadings of the parties, on 11.08.1989 the following issues were framed :-

1. Whether the order passed by defendant no.2 on 02.11.1987 against the plaintiff is illegal void and liable to be set aside? OPP.

2. Whether appellate order of D.I.G. Police, Jalandhar is illegal void and liable to be set aside ? OPP.

3. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties ?OPD.

4. Whether there arose no cause of act