BIKRAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who was serving as a Constable has filed the instant writ petition questioning the validity of the order dated 25.08.2006 (Annexure P -4) passed by the Commandant, 82nd Battalion, PAP Chandigarh, whereby the extreme penalty of dismissal from service has been imposed upon him. Further challenge is to the orders dated 14.05.2007 (Annexure P -6) and 25.03.2008 (Annexure P -8), whereby the Appellate and Revisional Authorities have affirmed the orders of dismissal. Petitioner joined service with the Police Department as Constable on 18.01.1994 in the Punjab Armed Police Wing. A departmental inquiry was initiated against him on the allegation that he had put his signatures on blank TA forms and supplied the same to HC Gurmej Singh, the then Accountant, 82nd Battalion, PAP and in pursuance thereto, TA amount of Rs. 21,730/ - had been withdrawn. The duly appointed Inquiry Officer furnished an inquiry report and a show cause notice dated 15.06.2006 at Annexure P -2 was served upon the petitioner, wherein a penalty of dismissal was contemplated. The petitioner furnished his reply thereto, and after consideration of the same and having afforded an opportunity of personal hearing, the impugned order dated 25.08.2006 has been passed by the disciplinary authority at Annexure P -4 dismissing the petitioner from service. The statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 14.05.2007 (Annexure P -6) passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, PAP -2 and Training Punjab and even the subsequent revision petition has met the same fate in terms of passing of order dated 25.03.2008 (Annexure P -8) passed by the Inspector General of Police, PAP Jalandhar Cant.

(2.) APPARENTLY , the petitioner thereafter even filed a mercy cum revision petition before the Director General of Police and which also has not been entertained. It is against such factual backdrop that the present writ petition has been instituted.

(3.) LEARNED State counsel on the other hand would submit that the petitioner was involved in a TA scandal and embezzlement of government funds, wherein he had submitted blank TA forms duly signed to H.C. Gurmej Singh, the then Accountant, who has since been dismissed from service on the same allegations and the petitioner was in connivance with such Accountant and an amount of Rs. 21,730/ - had been withdrawn in an dishonest manner. Reliance has also been placed upon Punjab Government Circular dated 22.08.1955 in terms of which the minimum punishment for claiming, preparing and drawing the false TA is dismissal from service. State counsel would contend that such an offence would amount to a gravest act of misconduct and there was no scope for any leniency to be shown.