AMRIT LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of orders dtd. 1/2/2010, 20/9/2010, 6/1/2011 and 23/6/2011 whereby he has been dismissed from service.

(2.) On 1/5/2012, this Court passed the following order: -

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was dismissed from service without conducting the inquiry as contemplated under Rule 16.24 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 read with Article 311 of the Constitution of India. There was no occasion to dispense with the inquiry. The petitioner, at the most, could be placed under suspension but he was not liable to be dismissed. The action of respondent-State was bad in the eye of law. It is settled proposition of law that every conviction does not entail dismissal from service. In the instant case, the petitioner was not convicted on the date of dismissal from service, thus, order of dismissal from service was bad in the eye of law. As per judgments of this Court in 'Hakam Singh Vs. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and Anr.', 2021 (6) SLR 246 and 'Jai Bhagwan Vs. State of Haryana', CWP-26842-2015 dtd. 14/2/2017, dismissal from service from conviction is not automatic. There should be application of mind. The authorities are required to examine gravity of offence, role of the employee, quantum of punishment, length of service, entitlement to pension etc. In the case in hand, the petitioner was not even convicted by trial Court on the date of dismissal from service. He was dismissed invoking Clause (b) of 2nd proviso to Article 311(2) of Constitution of India. Said clause could be invoked in the case of conviction.