DHARAMPAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (ORAL)Petitioner has approached this Court, praying for quashing of the order dated 31.7.2007 (Annexure P -4) passed by the Superintendent of Police, District Rohtak, dismissing the petitioner from service on the ground that he has been convicted by the Special Judge, Rohtak, for offences under Sections 420, 161 IPC as also under Sections 5 (1)(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (for short, "the Corruption Act"). Challenge is also posed to the order dated 27.9.2007 (Annexure P -6) passed by the Inspector General of Police, Rohtak Range, Rohtak, vide which the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed. In addition to this, the petitioner has also challenged order dated 26.3.2008 (Annexure P -7) passed by the Director General of Police, Haryana, Panchkula, vide which the revision preferred by the petitioner stands dismissed. It is the contention of counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable on 4.8.1975. Thereafter, he was promoted as Head Constable. An FIR No.182 dated 21.5.1988, under Sections 420, 171, 161 IPC and Sections 5 (1)(d) and 5(2) of the Corruption Act was registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Rohtak. In the trial which took place, the petitioner was convicted by the Special Judge, Rohtak, vide judgement dated 5.6.1989 and sentenced on 7.6.1989 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. The petitioner preferred an appeal i.e. Criminal Appeal No.294 -SB of 1989 before this Court, where, vide order dated 31.3.2003 (Annexure P -3), this Court upheld the conviction of the petitioner. However, keeping in view the prolonged agony of trial, which the petitioner had to face, he has been released on probation for a period of three years on furnishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak. As per the counsel, on conviction of the petitioner by the Special Judge, Rohtak, he was dismissed from service by the Superintendent of Police vide order dated 31.7.2007 (Annexure P -4). The appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected by the Inspector General of Police and the revision against the said order was dismissed by the Director General of Police, without taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner would be entitled to grant of pensionary benefits. The conduct of the petitioner has also not been taken into consideration in the commission of offences for which he has been convicted. His submission, thus, is that the impugned orders cannot sustain. Counsel for the petitioner further contends that the punishment of dismissal imposed upon the petitioner is disproportionate to the misconduct, which is attributed to him as he is stated to have demanded Rs.20/ - only and, therefore, a lesser punishment of compulsory retirement or any other punishment would have been sufficient in the case of the petitioner. He, thus, contends that the impugned orders call for interference by this Court. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents, contends that the petitioner has been rightly dismissed from service by the Superintendent of Police, Rohtak, by invoking the powers conferred under Article 311(2)(a) of the Constitution of India and Rules 16.2(2) read with 16.2(4)(ix)(b) of Punjab Police Rules as the petitioner has been convicted by the trial Court as also by the Appellate Court. While passing the said order, the Punishing Authority has taken into consideration that he, instead of discharging his duties honestly being a member of the Disciplined Force, had himself indulged in a crime, involving moral turpitude, which has tarnished the image of the Department and it is not in the interest of public at large as also the Department that the petitioner should be allowed to continue in service. He further contends that after a regular trial, the petitioner has been found to be indulged in corruption and is convicted for various offences and, thus, he could not have been retained in service nor could a lesser punishment be imposed on him. Assertion, thus, is made for dismissal of the writ petition. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case. The admitted position in the present case is that the petitioner has been convicted for an offence involving moral turpitude, to be precise under Sections 420 and 161 IPC as also under Sections 5 (1)(d) and 5(2) of the Corruption Act. The trial Court did impose the punishment of three years rigorous imprisonment, which has been converted by the Appellate Court to probation. However, that would not in itself amount to exoneration of the petitioner from the misconduct, which had been committed by him as the same directly relates to his duties, responsibilities and functions as a Head Constable. The assertion of counsel for the petitioner that the respondents have not taken into consideration the conduct of the petitioner cannot be accepted in the light of the observations, which have been made by the Punishing Authority in its order dated 31.7.2007. The Appellate Authority as also the revisional authority have rightly rejected the appeal and revision respectively of the petitioner. The exercise of powers under Article 311(2) (a) of the Constitution of India and Rules 16.2(2) read with Rule 16.2(4)(ix) (b) of Punjab Police Rules, awarding punishment of dismissal from service is fully justified and in accordance with law. In an earlier occasion when this Court had an opportunity to deal with such a situation i.e. in Civil Writ Petition 22169 of 2012 (Ram Niwas Vs. State of Haryana and others), decided on 7.11.2012, this Court has held as under: -