OM PARKASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of orders dated 25.02.1992 (Annexure P-10) whereby, the petitioner was dismissed from service and order dated 03.06.1992 (Annexure P-11) and 06.09.1993 (Annexure P-13) whereby, the order of dismissal of the petitioner has been upheld in appeal and revision and for a further direction for reinstatement of the petitioner with all consequential benefits.

(2.) The pleaded case of the petitioner is that he joined service as Head Constable in the year 1973 at Rohtak and he enjoyed an unblemished service record and earned 27 good reports and not a single adverse report had been communicated to him and that he had exemplary service record. Reliance was placed on recommendation for his promotion as Assistant Sub Inspector by the Deputy Inspector General of Police and in pursuance of which he was promoted as Assistant Sub Inspector on adhoc basis w.e.f. 27.01.1989. It was submitted that the petitioner with exemplary courage apprehended four armed dacoits and was given promotion in the year 1989. It has been pleaded that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case in the year 1989 with the connivance of the Delhi Police where he had gone for investigation from Faridabad and the local police of Delhi had been intimated about the investigation. The petitioner was mercilessly beaten and his revolver was snatched and his companion was killed and he was involved in FIR No. 63 of 1989 under Section 304-A IPC and was suspended w.e.f. 25.02.1989 in view of the FIR. The petitioner was, however, eventually acquitted by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi on 07.03.1992. It was accordingly pleaded that the petitioner had remained under suspension and had not been reinstated but was again suspended on 12.09.1991 and from 1989 onwards, he was residing at Nazabgarh with brother and was mentally upset due to the attack by the criminals and remained under treatment at New Delhi and reliance was placed upon various medical certificates. It is pleaded that the petitioner had been wrongly charge-sheeted on the ground of absence from duty on 15.04.1991 and an ex parte inquiry was held against him and the order of dismissal was passed on 25.02.1992 against which he filed the appeal and the revision, which have been dismissed, all of which are now the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition.

(3.) The respondents, in their written statement, have justified the action taken against the petitioner and have also admitted that commendation certificate was awarded to the petitioner and he was promoted to the next rank but the same was only on ad hoc basis and he was liable to be reverted at any time to the post of Head Constable. Regarding the FIR No. 63 dated 25.02.1989 lodged at Police Station Sultanpuri, Delhi it was alleged that the petitioner had attended the marriage of a relative and opened four fires from his service revolver in a drunkard condition and caused the death of Constable Karan Singh at the spot and he was placed under suspension w.e.f. 25.02.1989 and transferred to the Police Lines, Faridabad. The departmental inquiry was also ordered against him but was kept pending till decision of the criminal case pending against him. It was further pleaded that during the suspension period, he was found absent from the General Parade on 15.04.1991 without any sanctioned leave or prior permission or information to the higher authorities and his absence was recorded and a regular departmental inquiry was initiated against him but the petitioner did not join the proceedings of departmental inquiry despite best efforts and remained absent and accordingly the inquiry officer submitted his inquiry report dated 30.01.1992 and on the basis of the said inquiry report, he was dismissed from service. The said order was thereafter upheld in appeal and revision and was legal and valid as per the procedure prescribed under the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to the State of Haryana) (hereinafter referred to as the 'PPR'). The fact that the petitioner having joined service in the year 1973 was admitted and it was pleaded that the subsequent conduct of the petitioner was not upto the mark as required of a responsible officer. It was submitted that the petitioner was absent from duty since 15.04.1991 without sanctioned leave or prior permission to the higher authorities and departmental inquiry was ordered against him and he was placed under suspension vide order dated 12.09.1991. The factum of the petitioner having been not reinstated, as alleged in paragraph no. 6, has not been specifically denied by the respondents in their written statement. It was alleged that the certificates of medical treatment are wrong and fake and he had not submitted any application for leave and remained absent from duty w.e.f 15.04.1991 upto the date of the order i.e. 25.02.1992 and the illness, as alleged by him, was not of such nature that he could not appear before the authorities for sanction of leave. Accordingly, it was pleaded that the petitioner, though under suspension, would continue having the same responsibilities and discipline as if he had not been suspended in view of Rule 16.21 of the PPR. Having been transferred to the Police Lines, Faridabad, he was to attend all roll calls and was required to perform such duties and to attend such parades as the Superintendent of Police may direct. It was alleged that the notice of the inquiry proceedings was sent to him and he was doing the business of cement stockist and property dealing. The petitioner refused to accept the show cause notice and the same was fixed at the door of his place of business. Accordingly, the continued absence and misconduct of such a grave nature was sufficient to prove that the petitioner was incorrigible and completely unfit for police service in view of the provisions of Rule 16.2 of the PPR Rules.