SUB INSPECTOR DEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sub Inspector Dev Singh through present petition filed by him under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks a writ in the nature of Certiorari so as to quash order Annexure P-3 dated 14th of July, 1993 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Haryana respondent No. 3 herein, vide which he was reverted from the post of Sub Inspector to that of Assistant Sub Inspector. Before, however, grounds in support of the relief as mentioned above as projected in the writ petition and canvassed through Mr. I.S. Balhara, learned Counsel for the petitioner are noticed, it shall be useful to trace a brief history of the facts culminating into the impugned order.

(2.) The petitioner joined as Constable with the Haryana Police on 28th of January, 1971. Consequent upon his passing of lower school course in March 1975, he was brought on list 'C' on 12th of April, 1973. He was promoted as Head Constable on 28th of April, 1975 on which post he was confirmed on 27th of June, 1979. He was promoted to the next higher rank of Assistant Sub Inspector on 8th of March, 1980. As per the procedure, he was to be reverted to the post of Head Constable when he was deputed to do the intermediate school course. He did that course from 1st of October, 1981 to 30th March, 1992, consequent upon which he was again promoted as Assistant Sub Inspector and was placed in list 'D' with effect from 25th of February, 1983. He was then promoted as Assistant Sub Inspector on 14th of April, 1983, on which post he was confirmed on 31st of January, 1986. After doing his upper training course in October, 1990, he was placed in list 'E' with effect from 30th of July, 1990. Then he was promoted as Sub Inspector on 2nd of August, 1991. Conceedly, he was put on probation for a period of two years on the post aforesaid i.e. of Sub Inspector. When this period of probation was to expire on 2nd of August, 1993, the impugned order reverting him from the post of Sub Inspector to that of Assistant Sub Inspector came to be passed on 14th of July, 1993.

(3.) It is so pleaded and argued on behalf of the petitioner that the said order cannot sustain firstly on the ground that before reverting him no show-cause notice was given and secondly that the same came to be passed on account of a complaint made by the brother of the petitioner who personally went to Deputy Inspector General of Police and the third and the last ground pressed into service is that the procedure as envisaged under Rule 13.18 of the Punjab Police Rules was not followed. The cause of the petitioner had been opposed and in the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4 through Shri R.S. Dalal, I.P.S,. Deputy Inspector General of Police, even though it has been admitted that some persons appeared and submitted a complaint levelling serious allegations against the petitioner which complaint was sent to Superintendent of Police, Ambala for enquiry and report but as a matter of fact the reversion of the petitioner was ordered on the basis of performance of the petitioner. The Deputy Inspector General of Police passed the order of reversion on 14th of July, 1993 as provided under rule 13.18 of the Punjab Police Rules as applicable to Haryana. He was reverted within period of probation i.e. within two years. He was awarded punishment of censure as a result of departmental enquiry by the Superintendent of Police, Kaithal. He earned adverse remarks for the period from 4th of May, 1992 to 31st of March, 1993, while he was posted in CIA Staff, Kaithal and CRO in the office of the Superintendent of Police, Kaithal. His assessment of work was found to be, "He is addicted to drinking. A third rate Sub inspector. Integrity is doubtful." These adverse remarks were conveyed to the petitioner on 14th July, 1993. The petitioner has filed replication. In paragraph 10 thereof, he has averred that the order of reversion has not been passed on the work and conduct of the petitioner but with a view to punish him. The A.C.R. of the petitioner has been adversely commented upon as an after-thought and the reversion order has been passed before conveying the adverse remarks. It is also pleaded that the A.C.R. was recorded against the instructions of the Government and no opportunity was granted to the petitioner for making a meaningful representation against the said entry. Reply to the replication has been filed by respondents No. 1 to 4 wherein the pleadings in the written statement have been, by and large, reiterated.