HARDEEP SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was appointed as a constable in the Haryana Police Force on 7/11/1979 has challenged in this writ petition the order dated 24/08/1982 issued by the Commandant, 2nd Bn. Haryana Armed Police, Madhuban on the ground that the impugned order of removal from service was in effect a penal order and as such the same being made without complying with the requirements of Article 311 (2) as well as the Rule 16.24 (ix) (b) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 is wholly arbitrary, illegal and unwarranted and so the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside and the petitioner to be reinstated in service. The facts of the case in a nutshell are that the petitioner was enrolled as a constable in the Haryana Police Service in November, 1979 and he had beendischarging his duties attached to his office duly and properly. The petitioner was a member of an unregistered Haryana Police Association. The said association had been canvassing for improvement in the service conditions of the police personnel serving with the Haryana Police and on several occasions made representations for improvement of the service conditions of the members of the police service. As a part of its campaign for improvement in service conditions, the association in the month of July gave a call to all its members to participate in "a non-taking of food campaign" which was to take place on 15/08/1982. On that day the petitioner and other police personnel numbering about 16,000. 00 'consisting of constables and head constables of Haryana Police Force attended to their duties but they did not take their food in the Mess. The protest undertaken by the Haryana police constables/head constables was a symbolic and peaceful one and no incident whatsoever had occurred on that day. The respondents, however issued order of dismissal/removal against 425 policemen under Rule 12.21 of the said Rules without serving on them any charge-sheet and without giving them any opportunity of hearing against the charges, prior to the passing of the said order of dismissal/ removal from service. About 154 of such policemen challenged the order of their dismissal/removal from service in Writ Petition Nos. 9345 to 9498 of 1983. before this court and the Constitution bench of this court after hearing, set aside the said order of dismissal from service and directed reinstatement in service without any break in their service.

(2.) The petitioner because of his activities in the Association was served with the impugned order of removal from service without being given any opportunity of hearing and without being asked to show cause against the purported order of dismissal from service. The petitioner has challenged the validity of this impugned order in this writ petition. A return has been filed on behalf of the respondents sworn by one Raj K. Vashishta, Indian Police Service, Commandant 2nd Bn. Haryana Armed Police, Madhuban, District Karnal, wherein in paragraph 2 it has been stated that the impugned order is not an order of dismissal from service and in fact this is an order of discharge made under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 as applicable in Haryana. It has been further stated in paragraph 3 of the said affidavit that the petitioner deliberately suppressed the facts that :

(3.) It has also been stated that a recruit constable who within a span of three years of his enrolment repeatedly absents from duty and does not improve himself in spite of warnings, is not likely to prove an efficient police officer.