SI SANGAT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Can the Inspector General of Police enhance the penalty awarded to an employee without the grant of an opportunity This is the short question that arises for consideration in this bunch of four cases. Counsel for the parties have referred to the facts as appearing on the record of CWP No. 13032 of 1999. These may be briefly noticed.

(2.) The petitioner was working as a Sub-Inspector. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. Ultimately, vide order dated February 12, 1998, the fourth respondent had awarded a penalty of forfeiture of two years' service. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed an appeal. It was part by accepted by the Deputy Inspector General of Police. The penalty was reduced to 'Censure' instead of forfeiture of two years' service. Thereafter, vide order dated July 12, 1999, Inspector General suo motu reviewed the matter and set aside the order passed by the Deputy Inspector General. The penalty of forfeiture of two years' service as awarded by the fourth respondent was restored. The order was passed in the purported exercise of the power under Rule 16.28 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, Volume 2.

(3.) The petitioner complains that the action was per se arbitrary and violative of the provision of the rule. He also alleges that there was violation of the principles of natural justice. Thus, the petitioner prays that the order dated July 12, 1999, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P.4 with the writ petition, be quashed.