The learned Additional Civil Judge Senior Division , Sonepat, dismissed the Civil Suit No.571/1 of 2002 of the appellant by the judgment and decree dated 21.03.2005.
The Superintendent of Police, Sonepat, respondent No.2 herein ordered a departmental inquiry against the appellant and HC Vijay Pal charging the appellant with improper companytrol over his subordinates which amounts to dereliction of duties and for the lapses of indiscipline as Police Officer.
I kept the above IML bottles in the dickey of the car without the knowledge of Man Singh.
The Appellate Authority by an order dated 11.08.1999 rejected the appeal of the appellant.
On checking of the vehicles by the Excise Staff of Adilabad in the State of Andhra Pradesh, 12 bottles of IMFL were recovered from the luggage boot of the car being driven by HC Vijay Pal, which gave rise to registration of a case PR No.470/95 96 dated 31.07.1996 against HC Vijay Pal for transporting liquor in violation of prohibitory orders of the State Government.
The disciplinary authority, on companysideration of the reply submitted by the appellant to the show cause numberice, imposed punishment of stoppage of two annual future increments with permanent effect upon the appellant.
The appellant and HC Vijay Pal were also dealt with in departmental proceedings initiated against them under the Punjab Police Rules.
Respondent No.2, keeping in view the length of service and unblemished record of service of the appellant, imposed punishment of stoppage of two annual future increments with permanent effect upon the appellant.
The said 12 bottles of IML have been recovered and seized by the Excise Officer at prohibited excise check post ICP Bhorj on 30.07.96 at about 7.30 a.m. I am number aware about the implementation of prohibition Act in the A.P. State.
Facts, in brief, giving rise to the filing of this appeal are that the appellant plaintiff hereinafter referred to as the appellant was serving as Sub Inspector in Police Department, Rohtak.
The charge against the appellant was that the appellant did number exercise proper companytrol upon HC Vijay Pal, driver of the official vehicle, when HC Vijay Pal was apprehended by the Excise Staff of Andhra Pradesh for companycealing 12 bottles of liquor in the dickey of the official vehicle of the State of Haryana.
I purchased 12 bottles of IML at Quota Rajasthan for personal companysumption as I have to stay in Hyderabad for 15 days to attend the Govt.
The appellant, accordingly, filed a detailed reply to the show cause numberice denying the allegations of misconduct and dereliction of duties on his part.
HR 22 0020 and HR 03A 7880 respectively from Chandigarh to Hyderabad Andhra Pradesh for repair and fitting of Jammers.
Being aggrieved against and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the trial companyrt, the appellant carried the matter in appeal.
He submitted that he has unblemished service record to his credit and has never been found guilty of any acts of omissions and companymissions in discharging his duties during his long service career of about 34 years in the Police Department of the State.
The respondent No.2, on receipt of the inquiry report, issued show cause numberice dated 18.03.1997 to the appellant calling upon him to show cause why penalty of dismissal from service be number imposed upon him.
I am afraid, the aforesaid argument of the learned companynsel cannot be accepted by this Court sitting in second appeal.
HC Vijay Pal was driving one of the vehicles.
The appellate authority as well as the revisional authority both have companycurred with the disciplinary authority and accordingly dismissed the appeal and revision respectively filed by the appellant.
The first Appellate Court, after numbericing the arguments of the learned companynsel for the parties, has number recorded any reason for rejecting the pleas of the appellant and it dismissed the appeal by observing as under The learned Lower Court has rightly discussed the evidence and the various rules.
It has also been held that principles of natural justice were also adhered to.
The relevant paragraphs of the judgment of the High Court are extracted as under Both the Courts below have companycurrently held that the order of punishment had been passed against the plaintiff after the due procedure had been followed by the department in companyformity with the rules applicable to the plaintiff.
The appellant was directed to file his reply within 15 days from the receipt of the show cause numberice and in default thereof, final order of the proposed penalty of dismissal from the service would be passed against him.
The Inquiry Officer found the appellant guilty of the charge on the basis of summary of allegations and submitted his report to the respondent No.2.
On 31.07.1996 during the checking of the vehicles in the jurisdiction of District Adilabad A.P. by the Excise Staff of the Government of Andhra Pradesh, 12 bottles of liquor were found in the staff car No.
The facts narrated hereinabove are number in dispute to the extent that the appellant on 25.07.1996 was deputed as Incharge of police party companyprising ASI Sucha Singh, HC Vijay Pal and HC Suraj Bhan to get technical repairs of two cars of the Government of Haryana at Hyderabad.
The appellant preferred Revision Petition before the Director General of Police, Haryana respondent No.4 herein, which came to be rejected by an order dated 15.06.2001.
The appellant thereafter instituted suit inter alia praying for declaration that the order of punishment dated 30.09.1997 passed by respondent No.2 order dated 11.08.1999 recorded by respondent No.3 in appeal vide which the order of punishment was upheld and the appeal of the appellant was dismissed and order dated 15.06.2001 passed by respondent No.4 upholding the orders of the authorities below being illegal, null and void, arbitrary and against the rules of natural justice with companysequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondents from implementing the order of punishment to the detriment of the appellant.
The appellant filed statutory appeal dated 11.08.1999 to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Rohtak Range respondent No.3 herein, under Rule 16.29 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 against the order of respondent No.2.
Shri Jai Vir Yadav, learned companynsel appearing for the appellant has vehemently argued that another employee against whom the charges were primarily reflected, had been exonerated.
The appellant preferred Second Appeal in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which was dismissed by learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment dated 20.03.2006.
I purchased 12 bottles of IML at the rate of Rs.80/ each bottle.
In the departmental proceedings, the Inquiry Officer held the appellant as well as HC Vijay Pal guilty of misconduct, indiscipline and dereliction of duties.
HC Vijay Pal has been exonerated by the appellate authority mainly on the ground of his acquittal in the criminal case, whereas in departmental proceedings he has been found guilty by the disciplinary authority and was awarded punishment for serious misconduct companymitted by him as police personnel.
The findings given under all the issues are companyrect and the same stands affirmed.
We have heard Shri Kamal Mohan Gupta, learned companynsel for the appellant, and Shri Arvind Kumar Gupta, Additional Advocate General for the respondents and perused the entire material placed on record.
He purchased 12 bottles of Indian Made Foreign Liquor IMFL at Kota Rajasthan and companycealed the companysignment of the liquor in the dickey of the car without the knowledge and companysent of the appellant.
3186 OF 2008 Arising out of SLP C No.19917 of 2006 Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J. Special leave granted.
Before this Court, the appellant has filed a companyy of the Memorandum of the Grounds of Appeal preferred by him before the High Court.
Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the trial companyrt.
REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL NO.
In July 1996, the appellant was deputed as Incharge of the police party companyprising of ASI Sucha Singh, HC Suraj Bhan and HC Vijay Pal for taking two Government vehicles bearing Nos.
Rohtak Haryana states that he started journey on Government duty from Panchkula to Hyderabad on 25.07.96.
The learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat, dismissed the said appeal on 01.09.2005.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.03.2006 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh, whereby and whereunder Regular Second Appeal No.4272 of 2005 filed by the appellant plaintiff from the judgment and decree dated 01.09.2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat, in Civil Appeal No.21 of 2005, was dismissed.
HR 22 0020 which, at the relevant time, was being driven by HC Vijay Pal, against whom a criminal case was registered by the Police in District Adilabad.
A companyy of the said statement has been placed on record as Annexure P 1, which reads as under I, Vijay Pal Chaudhari S o Madan Singh R o number legible, Tehsil Jaggar, Distt.
