SURINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was recruited as a Constable in the Haryana Police Wireless Section, is aggrieved by the order dated April 18, 1991, by which he has been discharged from service. A few facts relevant for the decision of this case may be noticed.

(2.) The petitioner was recruited as a Constable in the Police Wireless Sec. on Nov. 13, 1988. He avers that on Aug. 30, 1990, he along with Madan Lal, constable from District Kaithal, had a tiff with M/s. Sant Lal peon and Ram Lal, Octroi Inspector at an octroi post, Ambala City. As a result, a case under Sections 353/332/333/452 and 427 Indian Penal Code was registered vide F.I.R. No. 441 dated Aug. 31, 1990 against the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested on the same day. Thereafter, on Sept. 5, 1990, the petitioner was placed under suspension. While he was still under suspension, vide order dated April 18, 1991, the petitioner was discharged from service under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934. Aggrieved by the order the petitioner submitted a representation to the Director General of Police, which was rejected. On Aug. 5, 1991, the petitioner was acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala. Thereafter he has approached this Court through the present writ petition to challenge the order dated April 18, 1991, by which he was discharged from service (Annexure P.3) and the order dated July 24,1991, Annexure P.5, by which his appeal was rejected by the Director General of Police, Haryana. The petitioner avers that the order is based on the solitary incident and has been passed in violation of the provisions of the Rules and Art. 311 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been inter alia averred that the factual position is that on receipt of the above information, the then Superintendent of Police, Wireless, under whom the petitioner was serving had immediately placed the petitioner under suspension vide his Office Order No. 17074-79 dated 5.9.90 (copy of the order annexed as Annexure R.1). Later, the overall working of the petitioner was assessed and finding the same not up to mark, the answering respondent No. 2 was left with no option except to discharge the petitioner under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules."