LAWS(P&H)-2012-11-49

SWARAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On November 21, 2012
SWARAN SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who had been serving on the post of Head Constable with the Punjab Police, has questioned the validity of the order dated 29.11.2009, Annexure P14, passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Tarn Taran whereby the extreme penalty of dismissal from service has been imposed upon him. Still further, challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 15.3.2010, Annexure P16, whereby the statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of dismissal has been rejected as also the order dated 20.9.2011, Annexure P18, in terms of which the revision petition preferred by the petitioner has also been dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts that would require notice are that the petitioner joined the Police Department as a Constable on 21.10.1971 and was thereafter promoted as Head Constable in the year 1992. It has been asserted that the petitioner has unblemished service record of 38 years to his credit. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 9.6.2009 based on the allegation that he had taken active part in election activities. The petitioner was charge-sheeted on 15.6.2009 and thereafter, enquiry proceedings were initiated in terms thereof and an Enquiry Officer was appointed. The enquiry report dated 26.11.2009, Annexure P10, was submitted returning findings against the petitioner. A show cause notice was served upon the petitioner along with a copy of the enquiry report contemplating the action to be taken against the petitioner. The petitioner responded to the show cause notice in terms of submitting reply dated 29.11.2009. Upon consideration of the reply dated 29.11.2009, the impugned order of dismissal has been passed on 29.11.2009 itself i.e. one day prior to the date of superannuation of the petitioner. It is not a matter of dispute that the Appellate and Revisional Authorities have also dismissed the Appeal/Revision preferred by the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length.