IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***

RSA-1-1995 Date of decision : 27.01.2025 The State of Punjab and others ... Appellants Versus Manjinder Singh ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present: Mr.S.S. Hira, DAG, Punjab, for the appellants.

Mr. Rahul Sharma-I, Advocate for the respondent.

VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL)

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 by the defendants.

INDEX Paragraph Page

1 Challenge in the present Regular Second Appeal 2 1 and 2

2 Brief facts of the case 3 to 8 2 to 4

3 Arguments on behalf of the appellants 9 4 and 5 4 Arguments on behalf of the respondent 10 5 and 6 5 Analysis and finding 11 to 29 6 to 20

6 Conclusion 30 20 CHALLENGE IN THE PRESENT REGULAR SECOND APPEAL

2. Challenge in the present Regular Second Appeal is to the judgment dated 15.02.1994 passed by the trial Court vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter referred to as “the plaintiff”) for declaration has been decreed and the order of Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar, dated 14.05.1991 discharging the plaintiff from the police force has been held to be illegal, null and void and it has further been observed that the plaintiff would continue to be a Constable in the police force. Challenge is also to the judgment dated 13.08.1994 vide which the Ist Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the present appellant-

defendants (hereinafter referred to as “the defendants”).

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

3. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff (respondent) had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the order dated 14.05.1991 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar, discharging him from the police force was illegal, null and void. The said suit was filed on the plea that he was enrolled in the police department as a Constable in the month of November, 1989 and was allocated constabulary no.1719 and was deputed for duty from P.R.T.C. Jehan Khela to Police Station, Civil Lines, Amritsar and while being posted in Amritsar, he suffered from mental depression and was confined to bed twice in a short span of two months from 02.12.1990 to 14.01.1991 and from 20.01.1991 to 11.02.1991 and remained under treatment and after he had recovered, he resumed duty and it was further pleaded that without testifying the factum of ailment of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was discharged from service vide order dated 14.05.1991 and that no enquiry much less any charge sheet was issued to the plaintiff. It was pleaded that the plaintiff filed a representation before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Border Range, Amritsar but the same was declined by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Border Range, Amritsar vide order dated 18.07.1991 and thereafter a notice under Section 80 CPC was issued to the defendants and the said suit was filed.

4. In the written statement filed on behalf of the defendants, it was stated that the suit was not maintainable and that the plaintiff had joined the police department as a temporary Constable w.e.f. 11.11.1989 in Amritsar District and had absented from duty from 02.12.1990 to 19.01.1991 i.e., 47 days 19 hours and then from 19.01.1991 to 12.02.1991 i.e., 23 days 22 hours and 30 minutes and thus, his total absence period was 72 days (approximately) which was treated as leave without pay. It was averred that a show cause notice was given to the plaintiff to file a reply to which he had filed a reply and after considering all the facts and circumstances, the order of discharge was passed under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 and the said order was in accordance with law and had been passed within a period of 3 years from the date of his enrollment.

5. In the replication, the pleas taken in the written statement were denied and the averments made in the plaint were reiterated.

6. The trial Court framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether the suit is not maintainable as alleged?OPD

2. Whether the