IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH State of Punjab and another .....Appellants Versus Satnam Singh .....Respondent

1. Reserved on : 29.01.2026 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. K.G. Chaudhary, Advocate for the respondent.

NAMIT KUMAR , J .

1. Instant Regular Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 08.06.1993, passed by learned District Judge, Gurdaspur, vide which the appeal preferred by the appellants has been dismissed and judgment and decree dated 30.09.1992, passed by learned Sub Judge III Class, Gurdaspur, decreeing the suit of the respondent-plaintiff for declaration, has been upheld.

2. Parties to the lis hereinafter shall be referred to as per their original position before the learned Trial Court. Briefly stated, the plaintiff was appointed as Constable in the Punjab Police. The services of the plaintiff were terminated by defendant No.2, vide order dated

20.06.1990 on being absent from duty without obtaining any leave or permission from his superiors. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that no charge-sheet or show-cause notice was issued to him; no departmental enquiry was ever conducted against him and he was not afforded any personal hearing before passing the impugned order. The plaintiff, therefore, filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the impugned order dated 20.06.1990, terminating the services of the plaintiff under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules was illegal, unlawful, ultravires, against the principles of natural justice and not binding on the plaintiff and he still continues to be in service and is entitled to all service benefits, including pay and allowances with consequential relief.

3. The defendants contested the suit by filing written statement and raised preliminary objections that the suit was not maintainable in the present form; suit was premature as the plaintiff had not filed any appeal against the discharge order and the civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit of the plaintiff. On merits, it was submitted that the plaintiff was appointed against a temporary vacancy and he had absented himself from the training centre without any permission and leave. The plaintiff never reported back for training till the passing of discharge order. It was further submitted that no departmental enquiry was required under Rule 12.21 of the PPR. The suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed by the trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 30.09.1992 by relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. Rajinder Kaur v. Punjab State and another, AIR 1986 SC 1790 and the judgments of this Court in Punjab State through Secretary to Government of Punjab, Home Department, Chandigarh and another v. Joginder Singh, Ex- Constable, 1989(3) SLR 665; Rajinder Singh v. The State of Haryana and others, 1989(2) SLR 79, wherein the discharge under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules on account of alleged absence was held to be impermissible. The said judgment of the trial Court was assailed by the State before the first appellate Court, however, the said appeal was dismissed, vide judgment and decree dated 08.06.1993, whereby the findings recorded by the trial Court were upheld. The said judgments and decrees passed by the trial Court and the first appellate Court have been assailed in the instant Regular Second Appeal.

4. Learned State counsel has argued that the judgments of the learned Trial Court and the First Appellate Court deserve to be set aside as the order of discharge was passed strictly in accordance with Rule 12.21 of the PPR and it is a simple order of discharge carrying no stigma and the same is in consonance