REENA RANI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) This appeal involves challenge to judgment dated 28.10.2010 of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court whereby the appeal preferred by the Appellant against the order of the learned Single Judge was dismissed and the action taken by Superintendent of Police, Mewat at Nuh (for short, "the Superintendent of Police') against the Appellant under Clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution was upheld.

(3.) The Appellant joined service as Constable in the Police Department of the Government of Haryana on 26.02.2007. After three years and two months, the Superintendent of Police passed order dated 23.4.2010 and dismissed her service by invoking Clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution read with Rule 16(2) of the Punjab Police Rules, as applicable to the State of Haryana on the ground that while she remained posted as Prisoner Escort Guard from 24.5.2008 to 18.9.2008, she developed close relation with Mustak @ Mustkin @ Rasid, son of Istak @ Husain Khan of Guraksar despite the fact that he was involved in seven criminal cases registered Under Sections 332, 353, 392, 395, 397, 399, 402 and 506 Indian Penal Code and Sections 25, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act and she used to meet Mustak in Bhondsi Jail on many occasions. In the opinion of the Superintendent of Police, there was sufficient evidence to prove the Appellant's nexus with Mustak and, as such, she did not deserve to be retained in the service and that it was not practicable to hold a regular departmental enquiry because no independent witness would be available.