EX-CONSTABLE HARBANS SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been preferred by Ex-Constable Harbans Singh against order dated 24.01.2011 (P-8) rendered by the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for brevity 'the Tribunal') holding that the petitioner was rightly dismissed from service in pursuance of his conviction in case FIR No. 109 dated 26.07.1994 for the offence under Sections 379 and 411 of IPC, registered at Police Station Sector 11, Chandigarh. The criminal case was decided by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh vide order dated 04.09.200 l(P-2) and the case against the petitioner under Section 379 of IPC was proved. He was convicted but after hearing him on the quantum of sentence, he was ordered to be released on probation on his furnishing a probation bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety with like amount. The petitioner continued in service despite his conviction in 2001 on account of suppression of intimation to the appointing authority. However, vide order dated 02.042008 (P-3), he was dismissed from service by taking into account his conduct in the criminal case which has led to his conviction. The respondent-Administration concluded, that his conduct which has led to his conviction is of such a nature mat his retention in the police department is undesirable and not in public interest. Accordingly, by virtue of power vested in the Senior Superintendent of Police, U.T. Chandigarh under Clause (a) of the 2nd proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution, the petitioner was dismissed from service. The aforesaid order was challenged by the petitioner in an appeal before the Inspector General of Police, who upheld the same vide order dated 26.08.2008 (P-4). Even a revision petition filed by him did not evoke any different result and the same was also dismissed vide order 14.09.2009 by the Home Secretary, U.T. Chandigarh.

(2.) It is also pertinent to mention that the petitioner was awarded punishment of forfeiture of one increment with permanent effect vide order dated 30.12.2002 on account of negligence of duty and disobeying the instructions of his senior. Earlier to that, a penalty of censure was inflicted upon him on 22.09.1999 and his two increments were stopped on 18.12.1999 with permanent effect on account of absence from duty.

(3.) As per record, information concerning his conviction was communicated to the SSP-Appointing Authority for first time on 18.03.2008 by the SHO, Police Station Sector II, Chandigarh, which led to the passing of order of dismissal on 02.04.2008. It was thereafter, that even disciplinary proceedings were initiated against Sh. Baljinder Pal Singh, Naib Court in the Court of learned JMIC and Sh. Sarwan Ram HC, for not sending the information concerning conviction of the petitioner. Therefore, the delay in passing the order in respect of the conviction on 04.09.2001 (P-2) stands sufficiently explained. Moreover, we find that the Senior Superintendent of Police-Appointing Authority had taken into account the conduct of the petitioner which has led to his conviction and men concluded that such a person is not worthy of retention in service and accordingly, ordered his dismissal.