IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 29.01.2026 State of Haryana …..Appellant Versus Mouz Din (since deceased) through his LRs ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present : Mr. Priyavrat Parashar, A.A.G., Haryana for the appellant.

Mr. Rohit Singh, Advocate and Mr. Arvind Singh, Advocate for the respondent.

****

NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The instant Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the State of Haryana, impugning the judgment and decree dated 08.04.1994, passed by learned Sub Judge 1^st Class, Ambala, whereby the suit for mandatory injunction filed by the respondent/plaintiff has been decreed in his favour as also the judgment and decree dated 23.01.1995, passed by learned Disrict Judge, Ambala, whereby an appeal filed by the State of Haryana/defendant against judgment and decree dated 08.04.1994, has been dismissed. Parties to the lis are being referred to as per their original position before the Trial Court.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff namely Mouz Din was working as a Constable in the Haryana Police and was suspended on 12.05.1988 on account of absence from duty. During suspension also, he remained absent and did not attend the roll calls in terms of Rule 16.21 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (for short ‘1934 Rules’). His suspension was revoked without prejudice to the inquiry proceedings. The inquiry was held as per prescribed procedure and the respondent/plaintiff was dismissed from service, vide order dated 30.03.1990, on account of his absence for 11 months, 20 days, 8 hours and 30 minutes from department. An FIR No.118 dated 14.08.1986 under Sections 148/149/323/325 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 was also registered against the respondent/plaintiff, wherein he was acquitted. Against the order of dismissal dated 30.03.1990, the respondent/plaintiff preferred an appeal, which was rejected by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ambala Range. Thereafter, he filed a suit for mandatory injunction directing the appellant/defendant to pay all kinds of arrears of salary by treating him in deemed service by setting aside the order of dismissal dated 30.03.1990, delivered on 09.04.1990 and order passed on his appeal. The learned Trial Court, vide its judgment dated 08.04.1994, recorded a finding that an inquiry against the respondent/plaintiff was held in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Rules. However, while relying upon the judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Ex. H.C. Munshi Ram Vs. State of Haryana and others : 1991(2) RSJ 345, the learned Trial Court set aside the order of dismissal on the ground that the same is based upon the absence of the respondent/plaintiff from his duty, while he was under suspension and as per law, he was not required to attend the roll calls during the suspension period. The said findings recorded by the Trial Court has been upheld by the learned 1^st Appellate Court, vide its judgment dated 23.01.1995. Aggrieved against the concurrent finding recorded by the Courts below, the appellant-State has filed the instant appeal.

3. While issuing notice of motion, vide order dated 17.08.1995, the operation of the judgment and decree impugned was stayed. During the pendency of the instant appeal, the respondent/plaintiff has unfortunately died on 01.01.2000 and his LRs were impleaded as parties, vide order dated 30.08.2000. Thereafter, vide order dated 13.10.1995, the instant appeal was admitted.

4. Learned State counsel submits that the respondent/plaintiff was suspended on 12.05.1988 on account of absence from duty and during suspension also, he remained absent and did not attend the roll calls, whereas in terms of Rule 16.21 of 1934 Rules, the constable is required to attend the roll calls during the period of suspension. He further submits that absence from duty during suspension amounts to misconduct and justifies punishment under 1934 Rules. In support of his contention, learned State