EX Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court in writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for short 'the Tribunal') dated 5.12.2000 (Annexure P-5) in OA No. 175/CH/93. whereby the original application of the petitioner against discharge from service as Constable has been dismissed. A direction is further sought for quashing order dated 12.1.2001 (Annexure P-7) passed in Review Application No. 75 of 2000 and, consequently, quashing of order dated 1.9.1992 (Annexure P-2) i.e. the order of discharge of the petitioner from service.

(2.) The facts are that the petitioner joined the Chandigarh Police as Constable Driver on 18.3.1991. On 27.8.1992, the petitioner was to take charge of a vehicle in performance of his duty at 8.00 p.m. Constable Rajbir Singh, accordingly, took the vehicle to Police Station, Sector 26, Chandigarh, to hand over the charge to the petitioner. However, as per the pleaded case, the petitioner came late at about 9.00 p.m. On being asked for the reason for coming late by Constable Rajbir Singh, there was an altercation and scuffle between the petitioner and Constable Rajbir Singh resulting in recording of Daily Diary Report (for short 'DDR') No. 23 dated 27.8.1992 at 9.30 p.m. by Inspector Purshinder Mohan. The Petitioner that no damage was caused to the wireless set or the vehicle bearing No. CH-01-B-6619 and similarly there was no mention of breakage of "but" of SLR CHA-207. It was recommended to the Senior Superintendent of Police that the petitioner as well as Constable Rajbir Singh be discharged from service under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (for short 'the Rules') as they were not likely to prove efficient police officers. On the said recommendation, the Senior Superintendent of Police passed order of discharge dated 1.9.1992 (Annexure P-2) under Rule 12.21 of the Rules, as alleged, mechanically. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that, in fact, the order of discharge is on account of misconduct and allegations contained in DDR No. 23 dated 27.8.1992 and, therefore, the circumstances leave no measure of doubt that the discharge is by way of punishment, which could have been resorted to only after conducting an inquiry after issuance of charge-sheet under Rule 16.24 of the Rules. The short-cut, as adopted, is not permissible in law and is in violation of the statutory requirements viz. Rules 19.1 to 19.5 of the Rules.

(3.) The petitioner, aggrieved by the afore-stated action of the respondents, filed the original application. After completion of pleadings before the Tribunal, the matter was argued at length and the original application of the petitioner was dismissed vide impugned order (Annexure P- 5).