R.L. Anand, J. - (1.) PRESENT is a case which will show how the miscarriage of justice has taken place both at the level of the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court.
(2.) STATE of Punjab has filed the present Regular Second Appeal and it has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 17.3.1999, passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, who affirmed the judgment and decree dated 13.6.1997 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), who decreed the suit, of the plaintiff -respondent holding that the impugned order dated 17.3.1994 and the order dated 6.7.1994 are illegal and void. Some facts can be noticed in the following manner. Shri Buta Singh plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the order dated 6.7.1994, passed by the Inspector General of Police and the earlier order passed by the Commandant on 17.3.1994, are illegal, void and he be deemed to be continue, in service. It is alleged by the plaintiff that he was enrolled as a constable on 17.8.1992 in PAP at Jalandhar. He had been doing his work to the satisfaction of his superiors. It is alleged that on 11.10.1993, he went to see his mother and returned on 12.10.1993. He again received a message that his mother was seriously ill and he left on 18.10.1993. For this, the plaintiff made an application for the grant of leave and further applied for extension till 19.11.1993. On 22.2.1994, he received a notice un - der Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules as to why he should not be discharged from service. This notice was on the allegation that he remained absent from duty for seven days and further absented for thirteen hours on 11/12.10.1993 and he remained absent for thirty one days from 18.10.1993 to 19.11.1993 and that the plaintiff was not taking any interest in the performance of his duty. The plaintiff submitted his reply to the show cause notice but vide order dated 17.3.1994 he was discharged from service under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules. The plaintiff filed an appeal against the order of discharge which was dismissed on 6.7.1994 by the D.I.G. According to the plaintiff, his discharge from service amounts to removal from service by way of punishment and this order was passed by the defendant without resorting to the procedure laid down in the Punjab Police Rules. He was given no opportunity of hearing. So, the impugned orders have been challenged by the plaintiff on the allegations that Rule 12.21 is not applicable to a case of absence from duty and Rule 16.24 of the said rules is applicable.
(3.) NOTICE of the suit was given to the defendants and the stand taken up by the defendants was that a constable can be discharged from service within a period of three years if it is found that the constable would not prove to be a good police officer. It was contended that plaintiff remained absent for 7 days at one time, one day at another and thirty two days on the third time. He was a habitual absentee, therefore, he could not prove to be a good police officer. It was further pleaded by the defendants that Rule 16.24 is not applicable. The order of discharge has been validly passed by the competent authority. With this prayer, the defendants have prayed for the dismissal of the suit.;