DURGA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DURGA Singh has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the order of his dismissal from the Police Force quashed, The facts leading to his dismissal are not in dispute. He was recruited to Punjab Police Force as a Foot constable in 1949 by the Superintendent of Police, Simla. During his posting at police Station Simla East he was prosecuted under Section 34 (6), Police Act, 1861. He was convicted and ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 20/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one week. The finding of the learned Magistrate who convicted him was that he was found heavily drunk on the roadside in Sanjauli near the tunnel and abusing passers by on 2-10-1945 at about 8 p. m. One Kesho Ram who had been beaten by him at that time reported the matter at the Police Station Simla East with the resulting prosecution mentioned above. In the trial Durga Singh admitted these facts. Departmental inquiry was held against him after his conviction. The Superintendent of Police, Simla, called upon him to show cause why he should not be dismissed from the police Force under Police rule 16. 2 (2) for having become habituated to take liquor which brings bad name to the Department In this notice besides the above conviction it was mentioned that previously also he had been dealt with departmentally in 1952 for a similar offence and his one year's approved service had been then forfeited. Durga Singh made a written representation which was duly considered by the Superintendent of Police, Simla, who ordered his dismissal by order dated 24-11-1954. His representation to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police was rejected on 4-21955 and his representation to the Inspector-General of Police also failed. He has, therefore, applied to this Court under Article 226.

(2.) IN this petition Durga Singh has challenged the order of his dismissal on the following grounds: 1. That he was not given adequate opportunity to show cause under article 311 (2) of the Constitution; 2. that he was dismissed by the Superintendent of Police while under article 310 he could be dismissed only by the Governor;

(3.) THAT the State Public Service Commission was not consulted as laid down in Article 320 before the order of dismissal was passed against him; and