A suspended police officer must attend roll-call and cannot be absent without justification, reaffirming disciplinary standards.

JUDGMENT

Suvir Sehgal, J. (Oral)

State - defendant is in second appeal before this Court assailing the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below.

2. Brief facts, may be noticed.

3. Pleaded case of Vijay Singh - plaintiff/respondent is that he was appointed as a Constable on 03.05.1974 and was placed under suspension by the order of Superintendent of Police, Karnal on 03.03.1988. Summary of allegations was served upon him on 20.03.1989 alleging that he has remained absent from duty from 14.11.1988 to 29.11.1988. His reply was not found to be satisfactory and departmental inquiry was conducted, wherein it was found that the charge against him has been proved. On the basis of the Inquiry Report, a show cause notice, proposing punishment of stoppage of four annual increments with permanent effect was served upon him, to which he submitted reply. By order dated 29.07.1989, three annual increments payable to the plaintiff were stopped with permanent effect. Appeal filed by the plaintiff was rejected by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ambala Range, on 23.10.1989 and he remained unsuccessful in the revision as well as in the mercy petition. He filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the said punishment order as well as the orders passed by the appellate and revisional authorities are illegal, void, ab initio etc. and for restoration of all consequential reliefs. Upon being served, defendant - State filed a written statement taking various preliminary submissions. It was submitted that the respondent - plaintiff left the Headquarter without permission of the competent authority and absented himself during the suspension period. The defendant - State has submitted that the orders were passed after duly complying with the principles of natural justice and the provisions of the applicable rules.

4. After issues were framed and parties led evidence, the trial Court by judgment dated 26.10.1993 decreed the suit and set aside the orders passed by the authorities. Appeal filed by the defendant - State was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Karnal by judgment dated 11.05.1994, resulting in the institution of the present second appeal by the State - defendant.

5. Mr. Aman Bahri, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana has urged that the Courts below have erred in relying upon Rule 7.4 of CSR Vol.I, which were not applicable. He submits that the plaintiff - respondent was a Constable and his services were governed by the Punjab Police Rules and Rule 16.21, ibid, provides for the status and treatment of an officer under suspension. Still further, it is his contention that while decreeing the suit, the trial Court had placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Ex.Head Constable Munshi Ram v. State of Haryana and others, 1991 (6) SLR 296, which has been distinguished by a Division Bench of this Court in Ex. Constable Jagan Singh v. Director General of Police, Haryana etc., 2009 (1) S.C.T. 458.

6. On the other hand, counsel representing the plaintiff - respondent has supported the impugned judgments and decrees. It is his argument that the Rule 16.21 ibid requires the presence of a suspended official during a roll-call and there is nothing on record to show that that the plaintiff - respondent had absented himself at the time of roll-call.

7. I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their respective submissions.

8. The legal issue is no longer res integra. Rule 16.21 of Punjab Police Rules has come up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Dharam Singh, 1997 (2) SCC 550. Noticing the rule, Apex Court has held as under:

"16.21 - Status and treatment of Officer under suspension - (i) A police officer shall not by reason of being suspended from office cease to be a police officer.

During the term of such suspension the powers, functions and privileges vested in him as a police officer shall be in abeyance, but he shall continue subject to the same res