BALWINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who had been serving on the post of Constable in the Punjab Police, has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugning the order dated 5.5.2009, Annexure P3, imposing the punishment of dismissal from service, order dated 17.7.2009, Annexure P4, whereby the statutory appeal filed against the order of dismissal has been rejected as also the order dated 11.11.2009, Annexure P5, whereby even the revision preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed.

(2.) The brief factual backdrop which would require notice is that the petitioner was enrolled as Constable on regular basis with the Punjab Police on 24.5.1992. He was placed under suspension on 19.6.2008. Enquiry proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on an article of charge drawn against him to the effect that even though he had been assigned duty in the Guard of Dera Sacha Sauda, Moga on 3.6.2008 by the then Head Munshi, he had refused to join such duty. Enquiry report dated 18.12.2008 was furnished by the Enquiry Officer holding the petitioner to be guilty in respect of the aforementioned article of charge. A show cause notice dated 4.2.2009 was issued by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Moga and duly served upon the petitioner contemplating the extreme penalty of dismissal from service. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice. Upon consideration of the reply and after having afforded an opportunity of personal hearing, vide impugned order dated 5.5.2009 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Moga, Annexure P3, the petitioner has been dismissed from service under Rule 16.2(1) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (hereinafter to be referred as '1934 Rules'). The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of dismissal has been rejected in terms of order dated 17.7.2009 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ferozepur Range and even the Revision-cum- Mercy Appeal preferred by the petitioner stands rejected in terms of order dated 11.11.2009 passed by the Inspector General of Police, Border, Amritsar.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the order of dismissal dated 5.5.2009 in terms of contending that under the provisions of Rule 16.2(1) of 1934 Rules, the penalty of dismissal could have been awarded only on account of a gravest act of mis-conduct or on account of the cumulative effect of continued mis-conduct proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police service. Learned counsel would argue that the solitary charge levelled against the petitioner was not having proceeded on duty in the Guard of Dera Sacha Sauda, Moga on 3.6.2008. The submission raised is that the extreme penalty of dismissal from service with regard to such solitary act of mis-conduct was wholly unwarranted. Still further, learned counsel would urge that while imposing the extreme penalty of dismissal from service, the Punishing Authority had not considered the length of service rendered by the petitioner i.e. almost 17 years as also his claim to pension as was the requirement under the statutory Rule.