BHOOP SINGH Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a Constable in the Haryana Police, has been dismissed from service vide order dated 12.3.1992. The order of dismissal preceded with a departmental inquiry. Admittedly, the petitioner was posted as Treasury Guard at Dabwali on 1.8.1991. He allegedly left the duty at 12.10 p.m. for taking medicines and did not turn up to duty and remained absent for 17 days when he re-joined on 17.8.1991. Vide order dated 3.11.1991, departmental inquiry was ordered against the petitioner with the appointment of Inquiry Officer. After serving the chargesheet and holding inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 27.12.1991. On the basis of the inquiry report (Annexure P-1), a show cause notice dated 16.1.1992 was served upon the petitioner asking him to show cause against the provisional opinion of the disciplinary authority for imposing penalty of dismissal. Petitioner was also provided opportunity to make representation. The disciplinary authority vide impugned order dismissed the petitioner from service, concurring with the findings of the Inquiry Officer.

(2.) A departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner came to be dismissed vide order dated 17.7.1992. A revision filed therefrom before the Director General of Police also resulted in dismissal vide order dated 7.5.1993 and communicated vide memo dated 10.5.1993. The petitioner has challenged his dismissal firstly on the ground that the disciplinary authority has taken into consideration his past service record to impose penalty of dismissal and secondly the disciplinary authority has not taken into consideration the Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, as applicable to the State of Haryana, before imposing the punishment of dismissal. The petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court reported as State of Punjab Vs. Parkash Chand, 1991(1) PLR 36, wherein it has been held by this Court that it is obligatory upon the punishing authority to record a finding in accordance with the requirement of Rule 16.2 that the act of the delinquent official amounts to gravest act of mis-conduct requiring dismissal from service. Another judgment relied upon is dated 2.6.1993 passed in CWP No. 16689 of 1992. In this judgment, it has been ruled that while taking into account the past record while imposing the penalty of dismissal from service, an opportunity is to be given to the delinquent official to explain the same. It is accordingly pleaded that neither the requirement of Rule 16.2 has been taken note of nor any explanation was sought from the petitioner while relying on past service record. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the pleadings and the record. The petitioner has not challenged the findings of the Inquiry Officer. Neither he filed any reply before the Inquiry Officer nor led any evidence. It has been recorded by the Inquiry Officer, as also the disciplinary authority, that the petitioner chose not to lead any defence evidence nor filed any reply despite opportunity. The findings of the Inquiry Officer have attained finality. It is, however, true that the disciplinary authority while passing the order of dismissal did not consider the relevance of Rule 16.2. Not only this, even while issuing show cause notice, the alleged past conduct of the petitioner has not been communicated to him seeking his explanation. However, in the order of dismissal, the disciplinary authority has noticed the past conduct of the petitioner particularly various spells of absence in the past and imposition of penalty of stoppage of five increments and censure awarded to him. In the reply, the respondents have pleaded that the requirements of law have been complied with. The manner and mode in which the spirit of Rule 16.2 has been adhered to has not been disclosed or detailed except stating that the petitioner had not completed 20 years of qualified service to earn pension.

(3.) In view of the law laid down in the two judgments, relied upon by the petitioner, impugned order of dismissal is not sustainable in law. This petition is accordingly allowed, the order of dismissal is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the disciplinary authority to initiate fresh proceedings on the enquiry report by issuing fresh show cause notice to the petitioner communicating him his past conduct and punishments suffered by him seeking his explanation. Disciplinary authority will also take into consideration the mandate of Rule 16.2 before passing a fresh order. As the matter is pending before this Court since the year 1993, it is desired that the entire process of re- consideration be completed within a period of six months.