JARNAIL SINGH Vs. SPPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Assistant Inspector General of Police issued an order on 13th October, 1969 appointing the petitioner Jarnail Singh as Temporary Sub-Inspector against a temporary post. If was mentioned in the said order that the provisions of Rule 12.8(1) of the Punjab Police Rules (herein PPR) will not be applicable to him and that he would be governed also by the provisions of Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. On the same day, a certificate in Form No. 12.22(1) was issued to him by the Superintendent of Police by which he was appointed a member of the Police Force under the Police Act No. 5 of 1861 and was vested with the powers, functions and privileges of a Police Officer. The enrolment form as prescribed in the PPR gives the designation of the appointing authority like this "Superintendent of Police or Deputy Inspector General of Police." But error has crept in the printed form by printing 'for' in place of 'or'. The certificate in this case should, therefore, be considered to have been signed by the S.P. for himself and not for the D.I.G. The petitioner underwent the prescribed course of instructions and was declared qualified for the rank of Sub-Inspector by the Training College, Phillaur. He had also passed the riding test. By order dated 15th October. 1973, the Superintendent of Police-of North District ferminated the services of the petitioner under sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. The petitioner challenges this order.

(2.) His first contention is that the order was by way of punishment and this could not be made without holding an enquiry and without show cause notice under Article 311 of the Constitution .The order is assailed as punishment in the following manner.

(3.) On 11-10-1973 an F.I.R. was lodged in P.S. Kotwail, Delhi under Section 376|342|506|34 Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. The F.I.R. was lodged by one Mst. Rani. The petitioner was arrested and later on released on bail the same day. On 16-10-1973, a report appeared in the Indian Express that Jarnail Singh, Sub-Inspector has been sacked for allegedly raping the wife of a tea vendor of Chandni Chowk. The Sub Inspector had gone to her house in plain clothes to check a complaint against her husband who was not there at that time. The Patriot of the same date reported that Jarnail Singh of Kotwali Police Station has been served with a notice terminating his services for allegedly raping a woman on 12th October, 1973 according to the Superintendent of Police, North District Mr. Gautam Kaul. The alleged incident as appearing in the newspapers gave variety of versions. It looked as if the information was supplied to the Press by the Police. It is in this background that his services were terminated. Though the order on the face of it appears to be innocuous, yet it amounted to a penalty. Reliance was placed on R.D. Saxena v. and others v. State of U.P. and another 1969 S.L.R. 252(1). In the charge of rape the petitioner was, ultimately acquitted on 7-1-1975 because prosecutrix Rani refused to recognise him. The petitioner has now joined the noble profession of law.