SANGRAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged his dismissal from service brought about by order Annexure P-1 dated 20.10.1992 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Tarn Taran, as well as dismissal of his appeal by order Annexure P-3 passed by the Inspector General of Police, Border Range, Amritsar.

(2.) The facts which are borne out from the record show that the petitioner was recruited as Constable in the Police Department of the State of Punjab on 3.6.1971. While the petitioner was posted as driver at Judicial Guard, Amritsar, he was placed under suspension by an order dated 22.3.1991 of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Tarn Taran, on account of his wilful absence from duty with effect from 21.2.1991.At the same time, Inspector Santokh Singh, Anti-Smuggling Staff, Tarn Taran, was directed to hold Departmental inquiry against the petitioner. While that inquiry was still in progress, respondent No. 3 passed the impugned order Annexure P-1 and dismissed the petitioner from service in exercise of the powers vesting in him under rule 16.1 of the Punjab Police Rules read with Section 7 of the Police Act, 1861 and Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. Against his dismissal from service, the petitioner filed an appeal under rule 16.9 of the Punjab Police Rules. That appeal has been rejected by the Inspector General of Police, Border Range, Amritsar. Petitioner has challenged the impugned orders on the ground of non-application of mind and arbitrariness. His case is that respondent No. 3 had no material available with him on the basis of which he could form an opinion that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in rule 16.24 of the Punjab Police Rules.

(3.) The writ petition has been opposed by the respondents, who have in their written statement alleged that petitioner was placed under suspension for misuse of Government vehicle and was awarded punishment of 'censure'. Respondents have also charged the petitioner with the allegation of having remained absent on various dates between 17.4.1974 to 20.11.1992. Their assertion is that the petitioner has raised a false plea of his alleged illness in order to cover up his long absence from duty. They have stated that the petitioner was relieved from duty on 21.2.1991 to report for duty at Police Lines, Tarn Taran, but he did not do so and, therefore the competent authority placed him under suspension. Respondents have alleged that the petitioner was found mixed up with the extremists inasmuch as he was supplying them information relating to the Police Department and was carrying their arms and ammunition from one place to another.On the basis of these facts, the competent authority dismissed him from service by invoking the powers vesting in it under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. Respondents have pleaded that it was not practicable to hold a regular enquiry because the petitioner was associated with the extremists and no witness was prepared to depose against the petitioner because of fear.