BHAJAN SINGH Vs. BAHAL SINGH, SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bhajan Singh, petitioner after doing some survice in the Army, was deputed as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Punjab. Having been confirmed in that post and approved for promotion, he was posted as Sub Inspector Police in Rohtak district. He was sent on deputation in October, 1964, as Inspector in charge, Excise Staff, Rohtak. It was alleged against him that he was found taking liquor with some members of the Public in the Rest House at Chuchakwas, in district Rohtak, while on deputation in the excise staff. Rohtak being a dry district this amounted to an offence. An enquiry into the said allegation was held against him, which resulted in the passing of order, dated May 15, 1965, for the petitioner's reversion to his substantive post of Assistant Sub Inspector. The petitioner submitted an appeal against that order to Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ambala RAnge. In the meantime, Shri Bahal Singh, Superintendent of Police, respondent No. 1, is alleged to have mala fide raked up various other enquiries against the petitioner. During the pendency of the enquiry into the Chuchakwas incident, a warning was administered to the petitioner by the Superintendent of Police, in his confidential report for the period October 5, 1964 to March 31, 1965. In the course of the remarks by the Superintendent of Police, Rohtak dealing generally with the conduct of the petitioner, following observations were made.

(2.) After the admission of the writ petition, the appeal of the petitioner to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police against the punishment imposed on him by respondent No. 1, was accepted by order, dated July, 9, 1965 (Annexure 'I'). The operative part of the appellate order is in the following words :-

(3.) Mr. H.S. Gujral, the learned counsel for the petitioner has first tried to press into service, the allegations of mala fide against respondent No. 1. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, I do not consider it necessary to go into the disputed allegations. The departmental authorities may, if and when called upon to do so in appropriate proceedings, look into these allegations if it becomes necessary to do so.