SWATANTER KUMAR, J. - (1.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant, while impugned the judgments under appeal contended that the learned courts below could not have dismissed the suit of the plaintiff either on merits or for lack of territorial jurisdiction.
(2.) ON the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that the learned courts below have rightly dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff on the following grounds : - (a) the learned trial court has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit, as no cause of action or part thereof had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the said court. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Ex -Major Gurnam Singh v. Union of India, 1994(3 SCT 386 (P&H) : 1994(4) S.L.R. 76, (b) the order discharging the appellant -plaintiff in the suit was an order of discharge simplicitor under the Punjab Police Rule 12.21 and, as such, the finding recorded by the learned courts below are correct. Reliance was placed upon Full Bench of this Court in the case of Sher Singh v. State of Haryana and others, 1994(3) SCT 1 (P&H)(FB) : 1994(2) S.L.R. 100.
(3.) IN order to appreciate the merits of these contentions, reference to basic facts would be necessary. The plaintiff, who was appointed as constable in the Punjab police against the permanent post, was discharged from the service by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Majitha, vide order dated 31st August, 1992. The plaintiff challenged the said order as illegal, null and void and contrary to the principle of natural justice by filing a civil suit for declaration. According to the plaintiff, the order was malicious and even the Senior Superintendent of Police had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order under the Punjab Police Rules 12.21. The suit was contested by the State. According to the State, the plaintiff had not completed three years of service and he could be discharged by the Senior Superintendent of Police, while exercising his powers under the said rules. The objection by the State was also taken with regard to maintainability of the suit and that the court had no territorial jurisdiction. The learned trial court, vide its order dated 15.9.1994 framed the following issues : - 1. Whether the impugned order dated 31.8.1992 is illegal ? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to all the service benefits with interest ? OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable ? OPD 4. Whether the court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the instant suit ? OPD 5. Whether no cause of action accrued to the plaintiff to file the suit ? OPD 6. Whether no legal and valid notice has been served upon the defendants ? OPD 7. Relief. After affording the parties to lead evidence in support of their respective case, the learned trial court vide its -judgment and decree dated2.8.1996 dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. The learned trial court decided the issue on merits as well as on the question of jurisdiction against the plaintiff. On appeal filed by the plaintiff, the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court was affirmed while dismissing the appeal with costs, giving rise to the filing of the present regular second appeal. It has been noticed by the learned first appellate court that admittedly the plaintiff had not completed three years of service in the Punjab Police. This fact is not even disputed before this Court. There is no doubt that the above rule vests the respondent/competent authority with ample power to discharge a police official/officer simplicitor if he had not completed three years of service and was not likely to prove an efficient officer. The rival contentions raised on behalf of the parties revolve around the language and effect of rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules, which reads as under: - "12.21. Discharge of Inefficients. - A constable who is found unlikely to prove an efficient police officer may be discharged by the Superintendent at any time within three years of enrolment. There shall be no appeal against an order of discharge under this rule." ;