IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH State of Haryana and another .....Appellants Versus Amrik Singh (deceased) through LRs and another .....Respondents

1. Reserved on : 18.02.2026 2. Pronounced on : 08.04.2026 3. Uploaded on the website : 09.04.2026

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.

Mr. Inderjeet Singh, Advocate for the respondents.

****

NAMIT KUMAR , J .

1. The appellants/defendants-State of Haryana are in Regular Second Appeal before this Court challenging the judgment and decree dated 14.08.1997, passed by learned First Appellate Court, whereby the appeal preferred by the respondents/plaintiff, has been accepted and the judgment and decree dated 21.11.1995, passed by learned Trial Court has been set aside and the suit of the respondents/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 brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff was posted as Constable at Police Station City, Panipat, in August, 1987 under the control of Superintendent of Police, Karnal at that time. It was alleged that he had developed illicit relations with the wife of Kala Singh, a resident of Ashok Nagar, Panipat, and had been visiting her house at odd hours without any official work, to which the residents of the locality objected but he did not put an end to his visitings. On a complaint, summary of allegations was supplied to him on 30.09.1988. Enquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer, who framed formal charges against the plaintiff, which were proved. Thereupon, the Superintendent of Police, Karnal, served a show-cause notice to him for the proposed punishment to which plaintiff submitted a reply. Thereafter, the plaintiff was dismissed from service, vide order dated 03.08.1988. Plaintiff filed an appeal against the order of his dimissal dated 03.08.1988, which was rejected vide order dated 30.09.1989, passed by DIG, Ambala Range and the revision petition filed by the plaintiff was also rejected by the Director General of Police, Haryana, vide order dated 23.07.1990. Consequently, the plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaration to the effect that the order of dismissal as well as the orders passed by the appellate authority and revisional authority are illegal, against the principles of natural justice and the rules governing the plaintiff and, therefore, liable to be set aside.

4. Upon notice, defendants contested the suit by filing written statement wherein allegations of the plaintiff were refuted. It was submitted that the plaintiff had been given due opportunity to defend himself; enquiry was held according to law after obtaining sanction from the District Magistrate under Rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules and the dismissal of the plaintiff was in accordance with the rules.

5. Issues were framed on the basis of pleadings of the parties and after they led evidence and were heard, learned Trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 21.11.1995, 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 the plaintiff had failed to prove that the defendant did commit any illegality and did not observe the principles of natural justice and further the Police Rules as applicable to the plaintiff before passing the impugned orders.

6. Thereafter, the legal representatives of the plaintiff preferred first appeal, which was accepted by the learned First Appellate Court, vide judgment and decree dated 14.08.1997, holding the legal representatives of the plaintiff entitled to all benefits which were permissible to the plaintiff with effect from the date of his dismissal