HARBANS SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was inducted into the service of the Police Department as a constable in 1995. In 1996, a first information report was registered against him under Sections 393,394 and 458 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 25 of the Arms Act. Consequent upon the trial conducted against him, the petitioner was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur vide a judgment/order dated 26/7/2001 (Annexure P2/A). Based on the petitioner's conviction, on charges related to the offence of dacoity, he was dismissed from service by an order dated 9/10/2001 (Annexure P-5). The petitioner preferred appeals against the judgment rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur. His aforestated appeals bearing Nos.830-SB of 2001 and 831 of 2001, have since been admitted for regular hearing by this court. An interim order has also been passed in the aforesaid appeals by this court, whereby, the sentence awarded to the petitioner has been suspended.

(2.) It is on account of the suspension of his sentence that the petitioner issued a legal notice dated 15/10/2001 asserting that the order of dismissal from service should be suspended during the pendency of the appellate proceedings before this court. Since the respondents did not take any decision on the aforesaid legal notice dated 15/10/2001, the petitioner approached this court by filing Civil Writ Petition No.19757 of 2001. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by order dated 20/12/2001 (Annexure P7) by requiring the respondents to take a final decision on the legal notice referred to above. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the Senior Superintendent of Police passed an order dated 31/5/2002 (Annexure P8). By the aforesaid order the request of the petitioner was declined. After a lapse of more than four years since the passing of the aforesaid order dated 31.5.2002, the petitioner has approached this court by filing the instant writ petition with the same prayer. At the present juncture, the petitioner relies on an opinion tendered by the office of the Advocate General, Punjab. The opinion tendered by the Advocate General, Punjab sought to be relied upon by the petitioner is being extracted hereunder:-

(3.) An interpretation of the rule would mean that the said rule is to be read in toto meaning thereby that the Police Officer should be convicted and sentenced to imprisonment. In case one of the above two ingredients of conviction and sentence are missing, the Police Officer cannot be dismissed. The same would mean that in the event of said Police Officer filing an appeal against the conviction before the Higher Court and in the event of sentence having been suspended by the said Higher Court, the Police Officer cannot be dismissed. The Punishing Authority should wait for the outcome of the said appeal or revision so filed by the said Police Officer against the conviction and sentence. Strict interpretation is to be given to rule 16.2(2) of the Punjab Police Rules. The Punishing Authority cannot dismiss a Police Officer simplicitor on the basis of conviction and sentence. In case the sentence is suspended by a Higher Court and the petition against conviction is admitted by the said Higher Court, the Rule 16.2 (2) would not come into operation.