Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Amaninder Singh Sekhon, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Ravi Dutt Sharma, DAG, Haryana

JUDGMENT :

Namit Kumar, J.

Having failed before the learned Courts below by recording concurrent findings, the plaintiff/appellant has preferred instant regular second appeal, impugning the judgments and decrees dated 20.03.1998 and 16.11.1999 passed by the trial Court and Lower Appellate Court. Parties to the lis hereinafter shall be referred to by their original position in the suit.

2. The plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for declaration to the effect that order of dismissal dated 13.12.1991, passed by the Superintendent of Police, Hisar and appellate order dated 17.10.1992, passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Hisar Range, Hisar, and revisional order dated 21.02.1993, passed by the Director General of Police, Haryana, are bad in law and are liable to be set-aside. The plaintiff/appellant had joined as Constable in the office of Superintendent of Police, Hisar and remained absent from 25.12.1989 to 28.12.1989 and then from 22.01.1990 to 27.03.1991, and was proceeded departmentally and after holding departmental enquiry, he was dismissed from service vide order dated 13.12.1991, passed by the Superintendent of Police, Hisar. Aggrieved against the said order, he preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority i.e. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Hisar Range, Hisar, which was considered and rejected by the said authority on 17.10.1992 and thereafter, against these orders, he preferred a revision before the Director General of Police, Haryana, which was also rejected vide order dated 21.02.1993. The said orders were challenged by the plaintiff/appellant in the suit which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 20.03.1998, passed by the trial Court, by recording the following findings:-

"The plaintiff was absent more than three days and took the defence of his illness but no medical certificate was produced. The law relied by the Id. counsel for the plaintiff leads the circumstances whereby the medical certificate was duly produced and the same was not considered by the competent authority. Here the only plea taken by the delinquent is that he was ill as OPARI (effected from the Ghost) and got treated from Molvi, therefore, no medical evidence could be tendered in support of his claim. So far as the dismissal of the delinquent is concerned under Rule 16.2, I am of the view that the action is properly taken. The law relied by the Ld. G.P. supported this view that the absence of duty is a grave misconduct. So far as the sanction of the DM is required under Rule 16.38 here the law relied by the Ld. G.P. clears the position. Therefore, the plaintiff fails to prove the issue No.l in his favour being the circumstances are not properly explained that the order in question are illegal and liable to be set aside. Hence, the issue No.l is decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff. "

3. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 20.03.1998, the plaintiff/appellant preferred an appeal along with an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, for leading additional evidence/documents. The said application was duly considered by the learned Lower Appellate Court, by recording the following findings:-

"11.1 have carefully considered the above arguments of learned counsel for the appellant but I am not impressed with the same. A perusal of the trial Court's record reveals that the enquiry/ against the appellant in respect of his absence from duty form 25.12.89 to 28.12.89 and then from 22.1.90 to 27.3.91 was submitted by the Enquiry/ Officer on 27.3.91. The Superintendent of Police passed dismissal order against the plaintiff on 13.12.91. Admittedly, the plaintiff fded an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Hisar Range, Hisar which was dismissed on 17.12.91, the revision of the plaintiff was also dismissed vide order dated 21.2.94 passed by Director General of Police Haryana, Chandigarh. The notices dated 14.11.91 and 21.11.91 produced by the plaintiff do not relate to this enquiry/. Lear