KULWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prays for quashing order dated 28.2.1997 (Annexure P.2) passed by Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani imposing punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect after holding a regular departmental enquiry and a subsequent Order dated 28.3.1997 (Annexure P.3) passed by the Deputy Inspector General, Gurgaon Range discharging the petitioner from service as a probationer ASI. A further prayer made by the petitioner is for quashing the subsequent order dated 10.7.1998 (Annexure P.5) dismissing his review application. The petitioner has also claimed all consequential benefits.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as probationer ASI on 19.4.1994 and he was deputed to the Training Centre for passing of Probationary ASI Course. He completed the afore-mentioned course on 5.3.1995 and was posted in district Rewari. He is alleged to have absented from duty by remaining absent for four days. It has further been alleged that he was found absent from duty unauthorizedly on 3.8.1995 and was censured by the Superintendent of Police, Rewari. There are further allegations that when he was undergoing training at Dharuhera he did not send his weekly diary for the weeks ending 27.8.1995 and 10.9.1995. After the show cause notice, he was again censured. The petitioner is alleged to have absented on the intervening night of 2/3.8.1995 which again resulted into inflicting the punishment of censure. The Superintendent of Police issued him a charge-sheet and directed holding of enquiry which was entrusted to DSP HQ. Rewari. After examining the enquiry conducted by D.S.P., the Superintendent of Police, Rewari found the petitioner guilty of the afore-mentioned charges and awarded him punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect vide order dated 28.2.1997 (Annexure P-2). Thereafter the Deputy Inspector General of Police passed an order on 28.3.1997 under Rule 12.8 and discharged him as probationary ASI. It is admitted fact that the maximum period of probation for the post of ASI is three years and the petitioner had not completed three years. He was probationer on the date of issuance of discharge order on 28.3.1997 (Annexure P-3). The petitioner filed a review application against order of discharge but his review application was summarily rejected on 10.7.1998 (Annexure P.5) which is also subject matter of challenge in this petition.

(3.) In the written statement, the stand taken by the respondent is that the petitioner was guilty of a grave mis-conduct and has been awarded various punishments. The orders of various punishments awarded to the petitioner have been appended as Annexures R/1 to R/6. It has been claimed that the probationary ASI has been discharged during the period of three years when he was admittedly on probation. According to the respondents once the enquiry has been held by complying with the principles of natural justice then the order of discharge could have been passed.