AJMER SINGH, ASI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Keeping in view the controversy involved and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is being disposed of at motion stage itself.

(2.) The petitioner has been dismissed from service vide order dated 30-6-2003 (Annexure P-4) on the basis of an enquiry held against him. The allegations against the petitioner are that he was married to one Harjinder Kaur daughter of Gurbachan Singh. Two children were born out of their wedlock. However, he developed illicit relations with one Manjit Kaur widow of Balbir Singh for the last 3-4 years and one son was born out of their relation with Manjit Kaur on 22-8-2001. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order passed by the Sr. Superintendent of Police, Amritsar before the Deputy Inspector General of Police Border Range, Amritsar. The appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 10-9-2003 (Annexure P-5). A revision filed before the Inspector General of Police, Border Range Amritsar also resulted in dismissal vide order dated 22-3-2004 (Annexure P-6) and a further mercy petition/appeal was filed before the Director General of Police, Punjab, Chandigarh and the Addl. D.G.P., Punjab dismissed the mercy appeal vide order (Annexure P-7). The petitioner seems to have preferred another mercy petition which has also been rejected vide order dated 12-3-2008 (Annexure P-11). All these orders along with show cause notice dated 12-3-2002 (Annexure P-1) and enquiry report dated 17-1-2003 (Annexure P-2) have been challenged in this petition.

(3.) Challenge to these orders is manifold. However, the principal challenge seems to be gross violation of principles of natural justice and violation of the statutory Rule 16.24 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that both preliminary and the regular enquiries have been conducted without notice to the petitioner and at his back and without providing him any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses or to lead his own evidence. It is further the case of the petitioner that he was never served with charge-sheet, documents and list of witnesses, statements of P.Ws. were recorded in his absence.