J.Y. Gupta, J. - (1.) This is plaintiff's second appeal whose suit for declaration was decreed by the trial Court, but dismissed in appeal.
(2.) The plaintiff filed the suit for the grant of the declaration to the effect that the order dated Jan. 7, 1964, Exhibit P. 3, passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Patiala Range, Patiala, in appeal, against him, was without jurisdiction and illegal. According to the plaintiff, he was appointed as a Foot Constable in 1992 BK. in the erstwhile Patiala State. He was promoted as a permanent Head Constable on 1.6.2000 BK. He was subsequently, promoted, as a Sub-Inspector on Sept. 1, 1953. Later on, he was reduced to the rank of an A. S. I. on Jan. 30, 1955. He served as an A. S. I. and was posted as an Accountant in the office of the Superintendent of Police, Bhatinda, in the year 1958. On April 1, 1958, he was placed under suspension by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Patiala Range, Patiala, after holding some enquiry against him. He was dismissed from service on Nov. 25, 1958 by the Superintendent of Police, Patiala. He filed an appeal against the said order before the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Patiala Range, Patiala. Some original cases were registered against him and the appeal filed by him kept pending. He was acquitted of all the criminal charges registered against him. After those criminal cases were decided, the appeal was partly accepted on Jan. 7, 1964, whereby his dismissal was set aside, but the penalty of censure was awarded to him and he was allowed one half of his pay for the period of his suspension till Jan. 7, 1964. The said order of the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Patiala Range, Patiala, was alleged to be illegal and void on the grounds that the order of punishment was against his service conditions and the Punjab Civil Services Rules. According to him, he was not given any list of prosecution witnesses along with the summary of his alleged misconduct. No enquiry officer was appointed to hold the enquiry and no opportunity to defend was given to him. The show cause notice, Exhibit P. 12, issued to him, was invalid and illegal. It was further alleged that the Superintendent of Police did not send any information to the District Magistrate, Patiala, as required under rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (hereinafter called the Rules). Since he was acquitted by the criminal Court, he could not be punished departmentally on the same charges. The suit was filed on March 14, 1967. In the written statement all the allegations made by the plaintiff were denied. It was, however, admitted that he was working as an A. S. I., but it was denied that the enquiry against him was in any way vitiated because of any illegality or irregularity as alleged in the plaint. It was alleged that the provisions of rule 16.38 of the Rules did not apply to the present case. A plea was also taken that the suit was not maintainable and that the civil court hae no jurisdiction in this behalf. The trial Court found that the order passed by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Patiala Range, Patiala, dated Jan. 7, 1964, Exhibit P. 3 was illegal. As regards the opportunity given to the plaintiff before the passing of the said order, the trial Court found that he was given full opportunity to present his case. It was further held that the Court had the jurisdiction to try the suit. With these findings, the plaintiff's suit was decreed. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge reversed the finding of the trial Court issue No. 1, which was to the effect whether the order, in question, dated Jan. 7, 1964, is illegal, ultra vires unconstitutional and void for the reasons shown in the plaint ? It held that the order dated Jan. 7, 1964, Exhibit P. 3, was perfectly valid and legal. Rule 16.38 of the Rules was not applicable to the present case. As regards the punishment awarded by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Patiala Range, Patiala, in appeal, the same could not be gone into by the civil Court. With these findings, the plaintiff's suit was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the same, he has come up in second appeal to this Court.
(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that once the plaintiff was acquitted of the charges by the criminal Court, then no punishment could be awarded to him departmentally on the same charges in view of the provisions of rule 16.3 of the Rules. The learned counsel also relied upon Amin Lal Vs. The State of Punjab, 1965 Current Law Reporter 509 and Kundan Lal Vs. The Delhi Administration, Delhi, 1976 (1) Services Law Reporter 133 in support of this contention.;