B.S. Yadav, J. - (1.) Kehar Singh appellant was enlisted as a Constable on 10-7-1957 in the Punjab Police. In due course, he was confirmed. On 1-5-1963 he was promoted as Head Constable. He along with some Constables was posted at V.P. Guard Petrol Depot, Ambala Cantt. (V.P. denote vulnerable points). On the night intervening 13/14-4-1964 R.P. Abhey, P.W. 1, then posted as Superintendent of the Depot, gave a party at his house as he had got an increment. In addition to other persons, he also called Kehar Singh and other members of the Guard The party lasted up to 10/11 p.m. Liquor was served in the party. The members of the Police Guard are said to have taken liquor or beer in that party. However, it is not material, for the purpose of this appeal, whether they took liquor or beer. One Constable of Police Station of Ambala Cantt. happened to visit the Guard and, on return to Police Station, he reported that Kehar Singh and other Constables had taken liquor while posted on Guard duty. An enquiry was commenced. A charge-sheet was served upon Kehar Singh plaintiff and other Constables of the Guard. The relevant portion of the charge-sheet reads as follows:- "That you all on the night between 13/14-4-1964 at P.A.P. V.P. Guard Petrol Depot, Ambala Cantt., took liquor in contravention of the Circular Order No. 9493-9555 dated 24-12-1963 in the party given by Shri R.P. Abhey, Superintendent Petrol Depot Ambala Cantt. and thereby committed grave misconduct." A summary of allegations was also supplied to the litigants. Both these documents were signed by Shri Jurnail Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police/Assistant Commandant, 35th Bn. P.A.P., Jullundur Cantt. The enquiry was conducted by Shri Karnail Singh and he submitted his finding to the Superintendent, of Police and Commandant, P.A.P. The concluding paragraph of the finding is as under:- "I hold the defaulters guilty of the charge framed against them". Thereafter the Superintendent of Police and Commandant, P.A.P., Jullundur, served the plaintiff and other delinquents with a show-cause notice on 16-6-1964. In this suit we are concerned only with Kehar Singh plaintiff. The plaintiff submitted his explanation in which he denied the charge levelled against him and stated that he had taken only beer at the said party. It was also brought to the notice of the Enquiry Officer that there was absolutely no rule which prohibited taking of beer. However, his representation was rejected and he was awarded the punishment of dismissal on 4.7.1964. The plaintiff filed appeal against the dismissal order but met with no success. Thereupon, he filed this suit challenging that order on various grounds. It is not necessary to reproduce all the grounds on which the said order has been challenged.
(2.) The suit was contested by the Punjab State on various grounds. It was pleaded that the Commandant of the Battalion had issued a circular order prohibiting the consumption of liquor by the members of the Guard posted at vulnerable points. The plaintiff had entered a plea of guilty to the charge-sheet framed against him. Other allegations of the plaintiff about the illegality of the enquiry were also denied.
(3.) Upon the allegations of the parties, trial Court framed the following issues : 1. Whether the order dated 4-7-1964 of S.P. Commandant (P.A.P.), Jullundur, and the order dated 15-12-1964 of Additional D.I.G. of Police, P.A P., Jullundur, and order dated 5-7-1965 of the Additional I.G. Punjab are illegal and ultra vires on the grounds stated in para No. 17 of the plaint ? 2. Relief. Before that Court, the enquiry was challenged on the grounds that it was not held according to the provisions of rule 16.39 (i) and (ii) of the Punjab Police Rules, Volume II (for short "the rules"), that the Government or the Inspector General of Police had no power to issue the circular No. 9493/9555 dated 24-12-1963 by which taking of liquor was prohibited, that charge-sheet served upon the plaintiff was defective, as no statement of allegations was given to him along with the charge-sheet; that the charge-sheet and the summary of allegations could have been signed only by the punishing authority which was the Superintendent of Police and not the Deputy Superintendent of Police and that the rules of natural justice were violated by holding the enquiry on the report of the preliminary enquiry held by an Inspector of Police, P.A.P. copy of which was not supplied to the plaintiff before the commencement of the enquiry. The trial Court found all those pleas against the plaintiff and accordingly dismissed the suit.;