IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH State of Haryana and others .....Appellants Versus Roshan Lal (deceased) through his LRs .....Respondents

1. Reserved on : 13.02.2026 2. Pronounced on : 24.02.2026 3. Uploaded on the website : 24.02.2026

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. Priyavrat Parashar, AAG, Haryana for the appellants assisted by ASI Surender Singh.

Mr. Babbar Bhan Dhayal, Advocate for the LRs of the respondent.

****

NAMIT KUMAR , J .

1. The appellants/defendants are in Regular Second Appeal before this Court challenging the judgment and decree dated 07.08.1996, passed by the learned First Appellate Court, whereby the judgment and decree dated 27.02.1992, passed by the learned Trial Court, has been reversed and the suit of the respondent/plaintiff has been decreed.

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 initially enrolled as a Constable in the Haryana Police on 23.02.1977. When he was posted at Rewari, some persons, who had ill-will against him, entangled him in a false case of beating a person and also consuming liquor and snatching the purse of Dinesh Kumar. An enquiry was conducted at the back of the plaintiff and punishment order dated 06.10.1986 was passed without issuance of final show cause notice and without affording opportunity of hearing. The appeal and the revision filed by the plaintiff were also dismissed by the Appellate and Revisional authority, vide orders dated 12.12.1986 and 05.02.1988 respectively.

4. The said orders were challenged by the plaintiff by filing a suit for declaration for declaring the said orders being illegal and reinstatement was sought with full pay and allowances along with interest.

5. The defendants filed their written statement taking the preliminary objection that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit; the suit is liable to be dismissed because of act and conduct of the plaintiff; he has already availed the departmental remedies and was found guilty and the suit is bad for want of valid notice under Section 80 CPC. On merits, it was stated that the plaintiff was enrolled as Constable in Haryana Police on 23.02.1977 and he was dismissed from service on the basis of regular enquiry held against him as per rules and he was given full opportunity to defend his case. The orders passed by the Appellate and the Revisional authorities are as per law. The Enquiry Officer issued several notices but he did not come present before the Enquiry Officer although full opportunity was given to him in enquiry proceedings. The charge against the plaintiff was duly proved on the basis of statements of PW1 Raj Kumar, PW2 Ashok Kumar and PW7 Dalip Kumar. After completion of enquiry, he was issued show cause notice along with copy of findings of the enquiry report and 15 days' time was granted to file reply. On his request, he was granted 07 days' more time for filing reply but still he did not file any reply and punishment order was passed by the competent authority which was upheld by the Appellate and Revisional Authorities. Replication controverting the averments made in the written statement was filed by the plaintiff and on the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the learned Trial Court:-

“1. Whether the impugned order dtd 6.10.86, 12.12.86 and 5.2.1988 passed by the defendant No.5, 4 and 3 respectively are filed null and void as alleged ? OPP.

2. Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit ? OPD.

3. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed on the ground mentioned in preliminary objection of para No.3 ?

OPD.

4. Whether the plaintiff is stopped from filing the present suit ? OPD.

5. Wheth