GURMIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has approached this Court praying for quashing of the order of dismissal from service dated 29.12.2006 (Annexure P -4), order dated 13.03.2007 (Annexure P -6) passed by the Appellate Authority and the order dated 14.12.2007 (Annexure P -8) passed by the Revisional Authority, whereby the appeal and the revision preferred by the petitioner against the order of his dismissal from service stand rejected.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable on 17.01.1973 and by the dent of his and work and sincerity, he was rewarded with 46 good entries in the service record including cash rewards and certificates. There is only one adverse entry and that too of censure in his 35 years' service carrier. The petitioner, at the time of his dismissal, was working as an Assistant Sub Inspector. All this indicates that he has been a consistent good performer, a sincere and devoted police officer, whose work has been appreciated by his superiors. A false case of corruption i.e. F.I.R. No. 286 dated 29.11.2005 under Section 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, was registered at Police Station Ambala City. In the said criminal case, the petitioner stands acquitted vide judgment dated 29.07.2010 (Annexure A -1) by the Special Judge, Ambala, where the prosecution was unable to prove the case against the petitioner.

(3.) AFTER the submission of the inquiry report against the petitioner, a show cause notice was served upon him along with copy of the inquiry report, to which the petitioner filed a reply and on considering the reply filed by the petitioner, a well reasoned and detailed order dealing with all the contentions raised by the petitioner, has been passed by the Superintendent of Police, Ambala, dated 29.12.2006 (Annexure P -4), not accepting the pleas and holding him guilty of the charges levelled against him by the Inquiry Officer. The claim of the petitioner for grant of pension has also been considered as per the requirements of the Rules with regard to the gravity of the misconduct of the petitioner and keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has been found guilty of corruption, the punishing authority has concluded that no punishment less than dismissal from service would be appropriate.