LAKHBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A writ in the nature of certiorari is prayed for, so as to quash the order dated 12.02.2014 (Annexure P1), passed by respondent No.5, vide which the petitioner was dismissed from service under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India read with Rule 16.1 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 and Section 7 of the Police Act V/1861. As also the orders dated 26.06.2014, 01.11.2014 & 05.03.2014, passed by respondents No.2 to 4, respectively, whereby the appeals and even the revision petition preferred by the petitioner were rejected. A brief narration of facts that have led the matter to a current stage shall be expedient. Petitioner was appointed as Constable in Punjab Armed Police (PAP) on 05.09.1994. Pursuant to a complaint made by DRI, a criminal case RC 220 2012 E0010 CBI -DOU VI/EO-II, New Delhi dated 03.05.2012, under Section 120-B read with Section 489-B of the Indian Penal Code, was registered against accused Shakir Ali and Yusuf Ali @ Angrez, as they were found to be in possession of fake Indian currency valuing Rs. 15,79,500/-. During investigation, it was discovered that in fact a consignment, valuing Rs. 67 lacs, of the denomination of fake Rs. 500 & Rs. 1000 notes, was sent from Pakistan via Amritsar to Delhi. Investigations further revealed the involvement of the holder of a mobile number 97815-20206. And also that the said number was owned and possessed by the petitioner. Petitioner i.e. Constable 9/615, was concededly, posted on Guard duty at Railway Bridge Attri, District Amritsar. And as per records, he had proceeded on one day casual leave on 29.04.2012 and reported back on duty on 01.05.2012 at 10:40 am. Further, from 29.04.2012 to 01.05.2012, the connection i.e. mobile number of the petitioner was in transit from Punjab to Delhi via Haryana and returned following the same route. Investigating agency unraveled that between 29.04.2012 to 30.04.2012, seven calls were exchanged between the cell phone of the petitioner and that of accused Yusuf Ali @ Angrez. And consignment of fake Indian currency was delivered to the accused on 30.04.2012 near Petrol Pump, Loni Circle, Delhi. On an analysis of the matter in issue and the material on record, the disciplinary authority i.e. the Commandant, 9th Battalion, PAP, Amritsar, concluded that as the only witnesses to prove the involvement and misconduct of the petitioner would be Shakir Ali and Yusuf Ali, who themselves were accused, it was out of question that they would ever depose against the petitioner. Secondly, petitioner himself being a police personnel and a member of the force could always pressurize the witnesses. And nobody, in this situation, was likely to come forward and depose against him. That being so, and the disciplinary authority being satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable to hold a departmental inquiry, dismissed the petitioner from service in exercise of power under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India, vide order dated 12.02.2014 (Annexure P1). Appeals preferred by the petitioner against the order of his dismissal were dismissed vide orders dated 26.06.2014 & 01.11.2014 by the DIG, Administration PAP, Jalandhar Cantt. and IG, PAP, Jalandhar Cantt., respectively. Likewise, the revision petition too preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by respondent No.2, vide order dated 05.03.2015 (Annexure P7). That is how, as indicated above, the petitioner is before this court.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paper book.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner proceeded on a casual leave on 29.04.2012 (AN) to see his ailing father and had, inadvertently, left his mobile phone in the Guard room. On 30.04.2012, when he reported on duty his phone was delivered to him by his Incharge Head Constable Ranjit Singh 9/153. He was ignorant of the calls, if any, that were made from his mobile number. However, it is submitted that all this could be proved only if an inquiry was held against the petitioner and he had an opportunity to prove his innocence. Further, the decision of the disciplinary authority to dispense with the inquiry was arbitrary and was not based on any cogent material. Thus, the order being assailed (Annexure P1) is vitiated.