SUKHWINDER 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 11.10.2006 (Annexure P5), vide which the petitioner was dismissed from service, and also orders dated 14.03.2007 (Annexure P6), 28.08.2007 (Annexure P7) and 30.07.2013 (Annexure P8), whereby the appeals/revision/mercy petition preferred by the petitioner were dismissed. Petitioner i.e. Ex-Constable Sukhwinder Singh was married to Kamaljit Kaur. As she could not bear a child, he filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. While the first marriage was still subsisting, he solemnised a second marriage with Amandeep Kaur, daughter of Swaran Singh on 20.06.2001. A departmental enquiry was ordered against the petitioner and having been found guilty of the misconduct, he was dismissed from service. So much so, competent authority i.e. Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar, while passing the order of dismissal observed that one Seema Rani, daughter of Rajinder Kumar, also appeared before him and maintained that the petitioner had even performed marriage with her also. She produced the photographs of their marriage. That being so, it was concluded that the petitioner had even contracted a third marriage, and was not fit to be retained in service being guilty of grave misconduct.

(2.) Being aggrieved, petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed vide order dated 14.03.2007 (Annexure P6). Thereafter, petitioner even preferred a revision petition to Inspector General of Police, Border Amritsar, who heard the petitioner in person. Petitioner conceded his guilt and prayed for pardon. But as he had contracted a second marriage and had violated the conduct rules, revision petition preferred by him was also dismissed vide order dated 28.08.2007 (Annexure P7). Post passing of the order dated 28.08.2007 (Annexure P7), petitioner did not assail the order of his dismissal any further, and thus, the same attained finality with efflux of time. However, subsequently, he moved a mercy petition to the Government, which too was dismissed vide order dated 05.10.2009. Again, years rolled by, and once again the petitioner attempted to revive an old, stale and settled claim by moving yet another mercy petition which too was dismissed vide order dated 30.07.2013 (Annexure P8), with an observation that even earlier the petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Government on 05.10.2009, and nothing new was brought on record thereafter,

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