SWARAN GANDHI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a Head Constable in the Punjab Police, was charge-sheeted. After a departmental enquiry, it was found that he had taken Rs. 6,000/- from a constable for issuing a clearance certificate. A show cause notice calling upon him to explain in as to why he be not dismissed from the Police Department "for extorting Rs. 6,000/- by cheating and a criminal case be not registered him....." was issued to him. After considering his reply, the Commandant vide his order dated July 23, 1993, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P-1 with the writ petition, took a lenient view and ordered that five years' approved service be permanently forfeited, and five yearly increments earned by him be "reduced from his pay". It was further ordered that he would not be paid anything beyond the subsistence allowance for the period during which he had remained under suspension. The appeal filed by the petitioner against this order was dismissed by the Deputy Inspector General vide order a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P-2 with the writ petition. Almost simultaneously, the petitioner was conveyed adverse remarks vide letter dated August 17, 1993. It was inter alia observed that he was "intelligent but cunning". His reputation for honesty was "doubtful". The factum of the pendency of the departmental enquiry was also recorded. A copy of this communication is Annexure P-3 with the writ petition. The petitioner represented. Vide order dated February 28, 1994, his representation was rejected. Thereafter vide letter dated December 29, 1993, the petitioner was conveyed adverse remarks for the period from April 1, 1993 to July 30, 1993. He was conveyed the following adverse remarks :-

(2.) A copy of this communication is at Annexure P-5. The petitioner submitted a representation which was rejected vide order dated April 4, 1994. A copy of the order is Annexure P-6. The petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the orders at Annexures P-1 to P-6. The case was listed for motion hearing before a Division Bench on May 4, 1994. Their Lordships directed the issue of notice of motion only in respect of the petitioner's challenge to the adverse report for the period from April 1, 1993 to July 30, 1993 vide Annexure P-5 and the rejection of his representation vide order, dated April 4, 1994, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P-6. With respect to the other matters, their Lordships found "no ground for interference." Accordingly, this matter has come up for hearing before us.

(3.) A written statement has been filed by the Commandant on behalf of the respondents. It has been inter alia stated that the petitioner had demanded Rs. 6,000/- from Constable Gurbax Singh. He was paid Rs. 4,000/- on September 2, 1992 with a promise that the remaining amount shall be paid on the next day. However, before making any other payment, the constable had narrated the facts to the senior officers. Consequently, a trap was laid. The amount of Rs. 2,000/- was paid to the petitioner on September 3, 1992. The money was recovered from his pocket. On the basis of these facts, it has been pleaded that the remarks recorded against the petitioner are well-merited.