RAHUL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CONSTABLE Petitioner was discharged from service by invoking Rule 12.21 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (for short, 'the Rules') on the ground that he was unlikely to prove an efficient police official. The Petitioner would impugn this order on the ground that the real purpose and reason behind passing this order is the allegation of absence from duty and this order has been passed by way of punishment, rather than ordering discharge of the Petitioner innocuously. The Petitioner would further urge that such an order could have been made only by following procedure prescribed under Rule 16.32 of the Rules by holding enquiry and affording proper opportunity to the Petitioner to defend himself. On these very grounds, the Petitioner had filed a detailed representation against the order of his discharge, which was also rejected and the same is also impugned through the present writ petition.

(2.) THE Petitioner would raise this question in the light of facts, which are noticed hereunder.

(3.) AS per the Petitioner, he could have been removed on account of absence only after following a procedure prescribed of holding a regular enquiry as contained in Rule 16.24 of the Rules. The Petitioner was further prejudiced, when his statutory appeal was not entertained and dismissed only on the ground that the same is not maintainable against the order of discharge. The Petitioner thereafter had filed a revision on 25.7.2007 by invoking the enabling provisions of Rule 16.32 of the Rules but has heard nothing about the outcome thereof till date. The Petitioner claims to have followed it up by filing a supplementary revision petition on 11.1.2010, when he was informed that no appeal etc. would lie against the order of discharge. He has accordingly filed the present writ petition.