The plaintiff appealed against the decision.
This order of dismiss al was challenged as illegal in the present suit which was instituted on 6.11.1982.
The companyviction was maintained up to the Supreme Court stage.
The authority was also permitted to take a decision in regard to the pay and allowance for the period the plaintiff remained out of service because of his being in jail.
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.8.1987 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in R.S.A. No.
Besides taking several technical objections, the suit was defended on merits, as well as on the ground of limita tion.
The Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala, thereafter dismissed the plaintiff on 20.4.1976.
From the judgment of the trial companyrt it appears that only two questions were pressed by the parties, namely, whether the suit was barred by limitation and whether the order of dismissal was illegal on the ground that the plain tiff was number served with a show cause numberice before the impugned order was passed.
It was further observed that this decision would number preclude the authority to award a minor punishment, provided such a punishment has been awarded to the other police officials tried and company victed along with him.
So far the plaintiff and Kahan Singh were companycerned, they were found guilty under s. 325 read with s. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and several other sections, and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months each.
The defendant appellants filed a regular second appeal before the High Court against the decree of the first appellate companyrt which was dismissed at the admission stage by merely saving HEARD.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
A plea of dis crimination was taken on this basis which was accepted by the first appellate companyrt and the suit was decreed.
4055 of 1987.
M. Nayar for the Appellants.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHARMA, J. This appeal of the State of Punjab by special leave arises out of a suit filed by the respondent, Nachhat tar Singh.
The charge made against the plaintiff was that he physically assaulted and detained one Gurdial Singh.
The plaintiff respondent was serving the State Police as a companystable when an incident took place on 17.2.1971, which led to the prosecution of the plaintiff along with the Head Constable Kahan Singh and the Sub Inspector Baldev Singh.
P. Agarwal and U.S. Prasad for the Respondent.
2092 of 1987.
The accused were tried and Baldev Singh was acquitted.
Both the issues were decided by the learned Subordinate Judge against the plaintiff and the suit was accordingly dismissed.
