OM PARKASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was recruited as a Constable in the Haryana Armed Police (In short HAP) on 5th August, 1985, and was sent to the 5th Battalion of the HAP stationed at Madhuban (Karnal). Therefore, on 1st October, 1986, the petitioner was transferred to 1st Battalion of HAP and posted at Police Lines Ambala City. The petitioner was selected for special Commando training course and was deputed for undergoing the same at the Training Centre, C.I.D. Haryana at Panchkula on 26th September, 1987.

(2.) It has been alleged in the petition that while undergoing the Commando training course at Panchkula, the petitioner fell down from a hillock and sustained multiple injuries and fracture of the leg on 6th October, 1987. In spite of those multiple injuries, according to the petitioner, the Incharge training course, i.e. Sub-Inspector Ram Kumar treated the petitioner callously and did not even provide first-aid to him. On the night of 9th October, 1987, the petitioner was sent to the Battalion Headquarters, Police Lines, Ambala and on 10th October, 1987 in the morning he got himself medically examined from the Chief Medical Officer, of Civil Hospital, Ambala City, as the doctor in the battalion was not available. Further, according to the petitioner, the Chief Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Ambala City, who had examined him, had advised complete rest for one week, which was extended latter on. It has also been averred in the petition that petitioner remained confined in his barrack at Police Lines with effect from 10th October, 1987 to 24th October, 1987 and during this period he was being continuously marked present in the meals register maintained by the Battalion Mess. Whale, according to the petitioner, he was still under medical beg rest, respondent No. 4, i.e. Commandant of 1st Battalion, H.A.P. passed the order of discharge of the petitioner on 20th October, 1987, under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules. A copy of the order has been attached as Annexure P-1. The mercy appeal of the petitioner against the order of discharge was dismissed by the Inspector General of Police, on 4th March, 1988 (Annexure P-2). These two orders have been impugned in the present writ petition.

(3.) In the written statement, the allegations of the petitioner have been denied and it has been averred that in fact the petitioner had abandoned the job and had absented himself without any leave. He had no right to the post being a probationer.