HARMINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 29.05.1992 (Annexure P-5), whereby one year service of the petitioner was forfeited permanently and orders dated 25.03.1993 (Annexure P-7), whereby the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed and the orders dated 17.11.1993 (Annexure P-9), whereby the revision petition of the petitioner was dismissed. A further prayer has also been made for granting the petitioner all consequential benefits of pay and arrears etc.

(2.) The pleaded case of the petitioner is that he was working as Head Constable in the Punjab Police and was posted at Nangal and on 02.04.1990, he was posted as security guard to the Deputy Commissioner's residence at Ropar. On the night, intervening 01/02.04.1990, at about 10 a.m., the petitioner, after informing his colleagues, had gone to take his meals. A checking was made by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ropar and on enquiry, the colleagues of the petitioner told respondent No.3 that the petitioner had gone to take his meals. Respondent No.3, without hearing the colleagues of the petitioner and without calling any explanation from the petitioner, marked the petitioner absent and ordered a regular enquiry. The Superintendent of Police (Operation) served upon the petitioner summary of allegations and list of witnesses to which the petitioner submitted his reply. The enquiry officer, without considering the reply of the petitioner and the evidence led by the petitioner, submitted his report, holding the petitioner negligent of the charge levelled against him. A show cause notice was served upon the petitioner for dismissal from service and the petitioner submitted his reply. Respondent No.3, without considering the reply of the petitioner, awarded the punishment of forfeiture of five years approved service of the petitioner with cumulative effect. A departmental appeal was preferred to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Patiala Range which was accepted and on 20.05.1991 and he referred the matter to Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala to pass appropriate orders. A show cause notice was served upon the petitioner for forfeiting one year's approved service with cumulative effect. The petitioner submitted his reply but the punishing authority was not satisfied and it passed order dated 29.05.1992, forfeiting one year service of the petitioner permanently. The appeal filed before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ludhiana Range was dismissed without affording any opportunity of hearing and thereafter, the revision petition was also dismissed by respondent No.2. Accordingly, the writ petition was filed wherein, as per para No.16 (ix) of the petition, submission was made that punishment imposed upon the petitioner was not enumerated in the Punjab Police Rules, 1934.

(3.) In the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3, it was submitted that the petitioner was marked absent and no enquiry was required to be made from the co-employees of the petitioner or call the explanation of the petitioner. After receiving the report from the enquiry officer, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner for dismissal from service and the petitioner had submitted his reply and thereafter, forfeiture of one year of approved service, with cumulative effect, had been ordered. The allowing of the appeal by the appellate authority was admitted. It is also submitted that the appeal and the revision petition had been dismissed as per rules. Regarding para No.16(ix), as to whether the punishment could be imposed as provided under the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, reply was to the extent that it was wrong and hence denied and no specific averment was made as to whether there was any such provision in the rules for forfeiture of service.