MAJOR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 31.12.1992 (Annexure P-1), whereby, the services of the petitioner were terminated and the order Annexure P-3, vide which, the appeal filed by him was rejected by respondent No.3.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case, as made out in the present petition, are that initially the petitioner was appointed as Constable in Punjab Police. Vide order dated 31.12.1992, he was dismissed from service as per provisions of Punjab Police Rules 16.1 read with Section 7 of the Police Act, 1861 and Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. The appeal filed against the said order of dismissal was also rejected. Order of dismissal and the appeal filed against the said order of dismissal have been challenged by filing the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the competent authority has power to pass the order of dismissal only in case the concerned employee has committed gravest act of misconduct or in case the cumulative effect of continued misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police service but nothing was brought to the notice of the Court as to how he had committed gravest act of misconduct or there is cumulative effect of continued misconduct. The total length of service has to be taken into consideration while awarding the punishment. Learned counsel also submits that instead of holding a departmental inquiry, the competent authority has passed the impugned order by invoking the provisions of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India. Neither any charge sheet was issued nor any reasonable opportunity was granted. No finding, whatsoever, has been given as to how it was not practicable to conduct inquiry. The only reason, which has been mentioned in the impugned order, is that the petitioner was having links with the criminal elements. At the end, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is liable to be set aside as the same is in violation of principles of natural justice as even no efforts were made by the Punishing Authority to give an adequate opportunity to the petitioner. Even no satisfaction has been recorded as to how it was not practicable to conduct inquiry.