IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH State of Punjab and others .....Appellants Versus Labh Singh (now deceased) through his LRs .....Respondent

1. Reserved on : 10.02.2026 2. Pronounced on : 17.02.2026 3. Uploaded on the website : 17.02.2026

4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is : Full pronounced or full judgment is pronounced

5. The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full : Not applicable judgment, and reasons thereof CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Argued by : Mr. Surya Kumar, AAG, Punjab for the appellants.

Mr. Rohit Kataria, Advocate for Mr. Manu K. Bhandari, Advocate for the respondent.

****

NAMIT KUMAR , J .

1. The appellants/defendants-State of Punjab are in Regular Second Appeal before this Court challenging the judgment and decree dated 06.06.1995, passed by learned First Appellate Court, whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent/plaintiff, has been accepted and the judgment and decree dated 23.07.1994, passed by learned Trial Court has been set aside and the suit of the respondent/plaintiff has been decreed and the impugned order of dismissal dated 25.05.1989 and order dismissing his appeal, have been set aside.

2. Parties to the lis hereinafter shall be referred to by their original position before the learned Trial Court.

3. The pleaded case of the plaintiff is that he was enrolled as a Constable in the Punjab Police on 02.09.1979 and was transferred from City Traffic to Police Lines, Patiala. Owing to serious illness of his wife, the plaintiff was compelled to proceed on leave. Thereafter, he resumed his duties on 31.10.1987. Subsequently, he was again transferred on 27.03.1988 to Police Lines, Patiala. During this period, his father fell ill and accordingly, the plaintiff informed the department and sought leave. He re-joined his duties on 21.09.1988. A regular department enquiry was thereafter instituted against the plaintiff on the charge of absence from duty. Sh.Surjit Singh Ghuman, DSP, was appointed as an Enquiry Officer, who submitted his enquiry report dated 28.02.1989. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to him on 02.04.1989, to which he filed reply. However, he was dismissed from service, vide order dated 25.05.1989 by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff preferred departmental appeal, which was dismissed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police. Consequently, the plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaration that the order of dismissal as well as the order passed by the Appellate Authority are illegal, void and liable to be set aside.

4. Upon being served, the defendants contested the suit by filing a written statement, wherein it was stated that the plaintiff had remained absent from duty without sanctioned leave for about 01 month on the first occasion and for about 07 months on the second occasion. On account of these allegations, a regular departmental enquiry was instituted against him, pursuant to which the Enquiry Officer submitted his report against him. A show cause notice was thereafter served upon him and after complying with all the procedural requirements, the plaintiff was dismissed from service, vide order dated 25.05.1989. The appeal preferred by him was rejected by the Deputy Inspector General of Police. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff was a member of the disciplined force and absence from duty without permission, amounted to serious misconduct for which dismissal from service was the only appropriate punishment.

5. Issues were framed on the basis of pleadings of the parties and after they led evidence, and were heard, learned Trial Court, vide judgement and decree dated 23.07.1994, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff by recording a finding that there was no defect in the enquiry proceedings conducted against the plaintiff. It was held that no irregularity or illegality in the enquiry proceedings had been established by the learned counsel for the plaintiff. One of the arguments ra