GAJINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was recruited as an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police on May 17, 1954, and was confirmed in that post on April 17, 1957. He resigned the post with effect from September 30, 1957, but was re-appointed at his request on October 31, 1958, by the Superintendent of Police, Jullundur. A case, F.I.R. No. 164, dated July 16, 1959, was registered against him, but it is not known what happened to that case. It was alleged against the petitioner that on December 1, 1960, while he was drunk, he beat one Bihari Lal of village Garha. Bihari Lal and some other persons, who witnessed the beating, reported the matter to the Superintendent of Police, who deputed Inspector Ram Sarup to make an enquiry and apprehend the petitioner. Shri Ram Sarup apprehended the petitioner and sent him for medical examination along with Bihar Lal. The doctor, who examined them, gave the opinion that the petitioner had taken liquor while Bihar Lal had not. On December 5, 1960, the Superintendent of Police, Jullundur, himself recorded the evidence of some of the witnesses and issued a charge-sheet to the petitioner. Some prosecution witnesses were examined on December 6, 1960, and the statement of the petitioner was also recorded. The petitioner was asked to produce his witnesses, and he submitted a list of 21 defence witnesses, out of whom the Superintendent of Police as Enquiry Officer allowed only four witnesses to be summoned. After examining those four defence witnesses, the Superintendent of Police completed his enquiry and report, on the basis of his findings he issued a notice to the petitioner on January 9, 1961, to show cause why the punishment of dismissal from service should not be inflicted on him. Before the matter could be decided, the petitioner was discharged from service by the Deputy Inspector General of Police on the ground that his work and conduct were not found to be satisfactory. The petitioner challenged the order of his discharge from service in Civil Writ No. 303 of 1962, filed in this Court, which was allowed by a learned single Judge on December 4, 1963. Against that judgment the State filed an appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent (L.P.A. No. 92 of 1964), which was dismissed by a Division Bench on September 3, 1968. In spite of these decisions in favour of the petitioner, he was not reinstated, nor allowed the arrears of salary, and his seniority was also not fixed. He thereafter filed Civil Writ No. 655 of 1969, which was decided by a learned Single Judge on April 15, 1969, by which time he had been reinstated and the Advocate-General gave an undertaking that the seniority of the petitioner, if not already fixed, would be fixed without any delay, and that he would be paid the arrears of his salary. On his reinstatement the petitioner was asked to join as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police at Amritsar. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar, then started action on the enquiry which had been held by the Superintendent of Police, Jullundur, in December, 1960, and January 1961, and inflicted the punishment of dismissal on the petitioner by an order, dated March 30, 1971. That order has been challenged in this petition.

(2.) Originally the petitioner had filed the present petition challenging the revival of the old enquiry, but as during the pendency of the writ petition the order of his dismissal from service was also passed, the petitioner amended the writ petition with the permission of the Court, and challenged the order of dismissal in addition to the legality of the enquiry. Written statement was filed by the Inspector-General of Police to the original writ petition, but no written statement has been filed in reply to the amended writ petition.

(3.) In his reply to the show cause notice the petitioner had stated as the first objection that along with the show-cause notice the copy of the enquiry report was not supplied to him, and, therefore, he could not submit a satisfactory reply. In the order of dismissal nothing has been said by the Senior Superintendent of Police about his objection of the petitioner which, if correct, vitiates the order of dismissal.