EX-INSPECTOR POLICE Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, challenge is to order dated 23.5.1989, Annexure P- 1, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service with immediate effect by the President of India in pursuance of provisions of sub-clause (c) of second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed that his dismissal from service be declared illegal and respondents be directed to reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits.

(2.) Petitioner who joined Police department as Constable on 15.7.1955, was promoted as Head Constable on 1.9,1958, promoted as Assistant Sub Inspector on 16.2.1974 and then on being promoted as Sub Inspector was confirmed as Sub - Inspector on 21.6.1988 and thereafter was promoted as Inspector on 30.6.1988. It is the case of the petitioner that during his entire career of service petitioner was never subjected to any departmental enquiry nor any major or minor punishment was awarded to him. Only one Annual Confidential report for the period 1.4.1987 to 13.7.1987 was conveyed to the petitioner against which he made representation but before the same could be decided, his services were terminated. Petitioner has also averred that another Annual Confidential Report for the period 2.8.1988 to 313.1989 was shown as adverse in which honesty of the petitioner was doubted and both these reports have been taken into consideration while terminating the services of the petitioner by applying Article 311(2)(c) of the Constitution of India but without deciding the representations of petitioner filed against adverse Annual Confidential reports. He has further averred that during his career he had also earned Class I and Class-II Commendation Certificates with cash rewards. Petitioner has challenged the order of dismissal on the ground that while the petitioner was posted as S.H.O. Patti from 24.4.1988 to 27.12.1988, respondent No. 5 i.e. Sh. Sanjiv Gupta, S.S.P. was over jealous and over enthusiastic to show to the higher authorities the encounters and stern action taken by him by fair and foul means through his subordinates. He was interested to show false encounters of suspects who were arrested by the petitioner, but the petitioner refused to toe his line? with the result that he started harassing the petitioner and adopted every means to spoil the career of the petitioner. Petitioner has further averred that respondent No. 5 got a false case, i.e. F.I.R. No. 183 dated 27.12.1988 under Section 5(2)/47of the Prevention of Corruption Act, registered against the petitioner at the instance of one Kashmira Singh, Sarpanch, and on the basis of this case the petitioner was suspended. In the F.I.R. it was alleged that Mohan Singh and his nephew were brought to P.S. Patti by respondent No. 5 through S.P. (Operations) due to their illegally sheltering the extremists but they were got released by Lakh a Singh and Bakhshish Singh by paying Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 6600/- respectively to D.S.P. Patti in connivance with the petitioner. It has also been averred that in order to link the petitioner with terrorists, a diary is said to have recovered from the possession of Lakhwinder Singh in which it is mentioned that on 6.1.1988 Rs. 16600/- were given to police for releasing Mohan Singh and his nephew. It has thus been averred that the story of the F.I.R. has been linked with the murder of Lakhwinder Singh by respondent No. 5 who got prepared Kashmira Singh for this extraneous purpose with mala-fide intention. Petitioner has further averred that there is no evidence that petitioner had any links with terrorists or that he has been helping the dreaded terrorists and leaking out information regarding police raids on the terrorists.

(3.) Respondents 1 to 5 in their written statement have made reference to the adverse reports which were conveyed to the petitioner. It has also been averred that the petitioner was dismissed from service due to his own acts when he was posted as Inspector, Patti and the decision taken against him is final because of provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution. Respondents have denied that respondent No. 5 was ever inimical towards the petitioner or that the impugned order was passed at his instance.