SATVIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court impugning the order dated 21.3.2006 (Annexure P-2) vide which the Punishing Authority i.e. the Superintendent of Police, Sonepat has dismissed the petitioner from service for a gravest act of misconduct for indulging in eve-teasing/molesting a lady and misbehaving with her under the influence of liquor. Order dated 11.5.2006 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Inspector General of Police, Rohtak range-respondent No.3 i.e. the Appellate Authority and the order dated 21.9.2007 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Director General of Police, Haryana-respondent No.2, the Revisional Authority, dismissing the appeal and revision of the petitioner has also been assailed on the ground that the petitioner stands acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Sonepat vide judgment dated 14.3.2011 (Annexure P-5) in FIR No.383 dated 26.10.2005 registered under Section 354 Indian Penal Code at Police Station City Sonepat for the same incidence.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned orders are non-speaking and, therefore, cannot be sustained. Another plea has been raised is that the Inquiry Officer has proceeded to return a finding of guilt against the petitioner without any evidence on record and this being a case of no evidence, the punishment based on such enquiry report cannot be said to be in accordance with law and, therefore, deserves to be set aside. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of this Court passed in CWP No.2413 of 2008 titled as Const.Kulbir Singh v. State of Haryana and others, decided on 28.9.2011. Counsel for the petitioner has also taken a plea that the act of misconduct attributed to the petitioner is not covered by the explanation as provided under Rule 16.2(1) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (for short 'the Rules') and, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the light of the Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in the case of Dhan Singh v. State of Haryana and others, 2009 1 RSJ 62.

(3.) On considering the submissions made by the counsel and the records, the prayer made by the petitioner cannot be accepted.