SHISHPAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was recruited as a Constable by a duly constituted selection Board under the Punjab Police Rules on 6.2.1984, and was posted under the Commandant, 4th Battalion, HAP, Madhuban as such. He remained posted there upto 31.3.1984. He was sent to Police Training College, Madhuban (Karnal) for undergoing training w.e.f. 1.4.1984. The case of the petitioner is that respondent No. 3 asked the petitioner and two other constables namely Harinder Singh and Rameshwar Dass to swear an affidavit that illegal gratification was being taken by Shri R.S. Kalson, IPS the then Commandant, Haryana Armed Police Battalion at Madhuban, but they showed their inability to do so. The petitioner along with two other constables continued getting training at Madhuban where their work and conduct were found satisfactory. However, on 31.10.1984 the petitioner abruptly received orders passed by Commandant 4th Bn. HAP, Madhuban, under Punjab Police Rules 12.21 whereby he was discharged from the force with immediate effect. The petitioner submitted representation dated 27.11.1984 which was dismissed by respondent No. 4 on the plea that no representation against order passed under Police Rules 12.21. The petitioner filed C.W.P. No. 1449 of 1985 before this Court which was dismissed in limine. Thereafter, the petitioner filed S.L.P. before the Supreme Court in which notice was issued to the respondents on 13.1.1986 returnable within two weeks for final disposal. During the pendency of the S.L.P. the then Director and Deputy Inspector General of Police, Police Training College, Madhuban accepted the representation of the petitioner and held that the petitioner had remained under training at Police Training College, Madhuban from 1.4.1984 till his discharge and as such there was no occasion for the Commandant, 4th Bn. Haryana Armed Police, Madhuban, to Judge the work and conduct of the petitioner on the basis of which he could reach the conclusion that the recruit constable was not likely to become a good police officer nor any such communication was sent to the Commandant, 4th Bn. HAP, Madhuban from the Police Training College, Madhuban. It was further observed in the said order that the Commandant 4th Bn. HAP Madhuban passed the order not basing on a genuine assessment of the work and conduct of the petitioner. The petitioner was accordingly reinstated from the date of discharge, i.e. 31.10.1984. The petitioner continued to serve the respondents to their entire satisfaction. It is further averred in the writ petition that the case of the petitioner was reopened at the instance of respondent No. 4 and on 10.1.1987 the Director General of Police, respondent No. 2 issued directions to respondent No. 3 to the effect that the orders of reinstatement of the petitioner were illegal and that he be discharged from service. Copy of letter of respondent No. 2 is Annexure P-8 to the writ petition. The. petitioner was relieved of his duties on 20.6.1987 vide order Annexure P-9 to the writ petition. His representation against the abovesaid order was rejected vide order dated 18.11.1987, copy Annexure P-11 to the writ petition. The petitioner has impugned the aforesaid orders Annexure P-9 and P-11.

(2.) The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid orders on the ground that since he had completed three years and 4 months of service, no order under Punjab Police Rules 12.21 could be passed. The other plea raised at the Bar is that once the representation of the petitioner against his discharge has been accepted by the competent authority, the same could not be reviewed after a pretty long time. The petitioner has also cited the instance of two other Constables Harinder Singh and Rameshwar Dass who are still in service and whose cases are exactly identical with that of the petitioner.

(3.) In the written statement the respondents have not controverted the pleas raised by the petitioner, rather they have admitted the same.