Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral):
By this common order, two appeals filed by the State of Punjab against the two employees of the Punjab Police, viz., HC Garib Das and Constable Satish Kumar, shall be decided together as the Appellate Court has passed the common judgment, whereby the appeals filed by the respondents were allowed.
Garib Dass was posted as a Head Constable in District Jalandhar along with Satish Kumar Constable. In January, 1984, both these employees were posted in the Security Staff for Banga and Nawanshahar. They were entrusted with the duty to verify the papers concerning issuance of passports of various persons residing in the said area. They used to collect the papers for verification on every Wednesday and Saturday from the office at Jalandhar and delivered the same after after verification on the same day of the week. There was no regular office at Banga area or at Nawanshahar. On 4.1.1984, Lajwant Singh, DSP, Phillaur found the passport papers concerning verification in possession of Rajinder Kumar, brother of Satish Kumar. This was construed as negligence of duty and a regular enquiry was held against the plaintiff-respondents. The Enquiry Officer found both the delinquent employees guilty and order of punishment dated 26.6.1984 Ex.P-1 was passed whereby their one year's service was forfeited. Aggrieved against the punishment order, Ex.P-1, both the respondent-employees filed separate suits. The suits instituted by them were dismissed by the Court of Sub Judge Second Class, Jalandhar on 16.4.1986 Aggrieved against the same, respondent-employees filed two separate appeals. The appeals so filed were decided by common judgment passed by the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar on 5.5.1988
The Sub Judge while dismissing the suit has held that proper enquiry, Ex.P-3, was held. Allegations levelled against the respondent-employees were proved and they were rightly held guilty of those charges. The trial court further held that proper opportunity was given to the respondent-employees to cross-examine the witnesses and enquiry report is based upon sound reasons. No illegality was found in the impugned order dated 26.6.1984 The Appellate Court also relied upon a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Inder Sain Sharma PSI (Law Inspector), 1968 SLR 519 to hold that the Pepsu Police Act nowhere provides punishment of forfeiture of one year service. The following findings were returned by the Court below:-
“7. In this case reference to the impugned orders would show that one year's approved service already rendered by each of the two appellants was forfeited with permanent effect. The punishment so awarded is therefore outside the provision of Section 7 of the ibid Act. Instead, it is not permitted even by the Punjab Police Rules framed under the said Act. It is well settled that the rules have to be consistent with the Act under which they are made. That table below Rule 16.1 of the ibid rules specifies the punishments that can be awarded to a police official and the authority competent to award the same. A reference to the same would show that there is no reference to the forfeiture of approved service with permanent effect. On the contrary, it specifies at Sr. No. 3 punishment of stoppage of increment or forfeiture of approved service for increment. It is thus evident that forfeiture of approved service can be made only for the limited purposes of stoppage of increment and not for any other purposes. However, the impugned orders awarding punishment of forfeiture of one year's approved service of each of the appellant with permanent effect would obviously affect them in the matter of their gratuity, pension and seniority.
8. In this connection reference may be made to the decision of a Division Bench of High Court of Punjab & Haryana in State of Punjab V Inder Sain Sharma, P.S.I (Law Inspector) 1968 S.L.R 519. The appellant therein was law Inspector in the department of Police and was governed by the Pepsu Police Act and the rules made thereunder. The Act did not provide for any penalty of stoppage of increment and in this context it was held that the penalty could not be awarded which was not authorised by the Act. This view finds further support from the decision in Ram Pat v. Union of India and others 1984(3) S.L.R 756. It, therefore, follows that the impugned orders are without jurisdiction and consequently void and issue No. 2 in the two cases is decided accordingly reversing the finding of the trial Court, to the contrary.” Counsel for the respondent-employees has submitted that both the employees have since retired.
No substantial question of law has been formulated by the appellant - State of Punjab. Counsel for the State has failed to dislodge the findings returned by the Appellate Court. He has also failed to justify as to how service of one year could be forfeited when there is no such provision in the Act to this effect.
Considering the fact that the employees have now retired, no case is made out to remit the case to the Appellate Authority for a decision afresh. Hence, there is no merit in both these appeals. The same are accordingly dismissed.
[Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] November 23, 2010. Judge
kadyan