KRISHAN PAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Krishan Pal was discharged from service on April 2, 1986, vide order Annexure P-l purporting to have been passed under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules with effect from April 1, 1986. The allegation of the petitioner is that this order was passed because the petitioner was involved in a criminal case registered under Sec. 392 of the Indian Penal Code on March 31, 1986, vide FIR No. 110 registered at Police Station Sadar, Karnal in which he was arrested. Subsequently, he and his other two companions against whom also the case was registered were acquitted by the Court on May 10, 1992. The two other companions who were suspended were reinstated on June 4, 1991. However, when the petitioner moved representation on Aug. 30, 1991, his case for reinstatement was not considered. On notice of motion having been issued, reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent inter-alia alleging that the order of discharge dated April 2, 1986, Annexure P-l was under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules and the provisions of Art. 311 of the Constitution of India were not attracted. There was delay for making the representation of about five years seven months if the order of discharge was to be treated as order of punishment. It was not specifically denied in sub-para (1) of para No. 9 of the written statement that the order of discharge Annexure P-l was passed on account of the registration of the criminal case.

(2.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that since the order of discharge was passed on account of registration of the criminal case, it was not a simple order of discharge passed under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules. After the registration of the Criminal case, on acquittal by the Criminal Court, the petitioner was entitled of the delay which occurred in the completion of the criminal trial or that the representation was not filed earlier. Obviously if any representation had been filed, the petitioner would have been faced with the pendency of the criminal trial.

(3.) For the reasons aforesaid, this writ petition is allowed. Order Annexure P-l discharging the petitioner from service is quashed. The petitioner will be reinstated forthwith with full back salary with continuity of service. There will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.