ISHWAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the present petition the question posed for this Court's determination is as to whether this Court, in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, can interfere with the findings returned by an enquiry officer in the course of a domestic enquiry and if the answer to such question is in the affirmative, then as to in which circumstances is such interference permissible.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that on 24/5/2008, while the petitioner was serving as an Assistant Sub Inspector in the Haryana Police and was posted in Police Station, City Narwana, in a sting operation, he was alleged to have demanded and received bribe from two journalists. The sting operation was allegedly caught on camera and also telecast on the Star News Channel. On the basis of the afore event FIR No.123 dtd. 19/6/2008 under Ss. 7, 13 and 49 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short - the PC Act) was registered against the petitioner and one Exemptee Head Constable Rattan Singh. On 19/6/2008 itself, by invoking Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India, the Superintendent of Police, Jind (for short - the SP) also dismissed the petitioner from service. The petitioner challenged his dismissal before this Court through CWP-8838-2009- Ishwar Singh vs. State of Haryana and others which petition of his was allowed by a Single Judge on 6/9/2010. The Single Judge was of the opinion that the SP had wrongly invoked Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India to dismiss the petitioner from service as in the facts and circumstances of the case it was practicable to hold a departmental enquiry against the petitioner. While setting aside the petitioner's dismissal the Single Judge granted liberty to the State to departmentally proceed against him. The respondents were further directed to hold the domestic enquiry within a reasonable time and that till the final order was passed in the petitioner's disciplinary proceedings, it was ordered that the petitioner need not be reinstated.

(3.) The judgment of this Court dtd. 6/9/2010 attained finality.