GURCHARAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the instant writ petition is to the order dated 19.7.2007 passed by the S.S.P., Amritsar (City), whereby the petitioner, who was holding the post of Head Constable has been imposed the penalty of dismissal from service in terms of invoking the power under Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India and dispensing with a regular departmental inquiry. Further challenge is to the order dated 30.1.2008 (Annexure P-4) as also order dated 24.7.2008 (Annexure P-6), whereby the appellate and revisional authorities have upheld the initial order of imposition of the extreme penalty of dismissal from service upon the petitioner.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner initially joined service with the Punjab Police as Constable on 5.4.1985. In the year 1989 the petitioner was promoted to the post of Head Constable and subsequently on 1.7.1995 he was confirmed upon such post. It has been pleaded that without issuance of any show cause notice or grant of an opportunity of hearing the impugned order dated 19.7.2007 has been passed by the S.S.P., Amritsar City reciting that it has been found that the petitioner was mixed up with notorious robbers and a chain snatchers gang and was mixed up with certain bad elements by providing them protection by using his influence of being a member of the police force and had even received cash/robbed valuable ornaments from the gang. The impugned order has been passed in terms of the power conferred under Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India read with Rule 16.1 of the Punjab Police Rules and Section 7 of the Police Act, 1861 in terms of holding that it is not reasonably practicable to hold a departmental inquiry as nobody would come forward to depose against him on account of fear of the bad elements and accordingly, dispensing with the same. An appeal preferred against such order has been rejected by the D.I.G., Border Range, Amritsar vide order dated 30.1.2008 and even an appeal-cum-revision petition has been dismissed by the Inspector General of Police, Border, Amritsar vide order dated 24.7.2008. It is against such factual backdrop that the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the impugned orders primarily on the ground that there was no material before the competent authority which would justify the dispensing with a regular departmental inquiry and as such there has been a complete negation of the principles of natural justice. Counsel would further argue that there has been a total non-application of mind inasmuch as the competent authority has not even recorded in the impugned order or has referred to any document through which it could be discerned that any verification of the facts has been carried out while recording that the petitioner allegedly had links with the robbers/chain snatchers gang/bad elements. Learned senior counsel has further raised a submission that the authority while passing the impugned order has not given the due regard to the 22 years of unblemished service that the petitioner possessed. Furthermore, malafides have been attributed to respondent no.4 i.e the S.S.P., Amritsar, who has been impleaded by name and assertions have been raised in the petition as regards the vindictive attitude adopted by such official which has finally led to the passing of the impugned order.