(1.) Ram Phal, a Head Constable in the Haryana Police takes strong exception to order, Annexure P-2, dated 5.12.1991 by which he was removed from list 'D' and reverted to the post of Head Constable from that of Assistant Sub Inspector as also order dated 4.1.1993, Annexure P-5, awarding him punishment of censure as also order, Annexure P-7, dated 12.8.1993, vide which his appeal against the orders, Annexure P-2 and P-5, was dismissed. The brief facts, on which the relief asked for rests, need a necessary mention.
(2.) Petitioner was enrolled in the Haryana Police as constable on December 17, 1970 after passing his matriculation examination and it is his case that with utmost devotion to duty and excellent service record, he was allowed to take up the examination of B-1 in January, 1978 and was selected and deputed to the Lower School Course which commenced from April 1, 1978. He passed the said course on October 15, 1978 and was promoted as Head Constable in December, 1979 and was put on probation. His confirmation was, however, for some reasons delayed and he came to be confirmed in 1984 instead of 1982. In 1991 he was promoted as Assistant Sub Inspector and was transferred from District Hisar to District Jind. On November 21, 1991 in the evening at about 8 PM he along with other four constables, was detailed for Nakabandi duty near Government High School, Pipaltha. It is the case of the petitioner that all the five police officials including him were divided in two parties and whereas one party consisted of Constables Hukam Chand and Jai Kumar, second party consisted of Lajpat, Jai Vir and the petitioner. The petitioner asked the party headed by Hukam Chand to reach directly to the Nakabandi and the petitioner's party was to come to Naka after patrolling in the area. The party headed by Hukam Chand reached at the spot and they found two persons sitting there in a suspicious manner. Constable Hukam Chand asked about their identity. However, Jai Kumar Constable saw a barrel of a gun in their blanket and suspecting them to be terrorists, Jai Kumar immediately grappled with the said persons and asked Head Constable to fire at other terrorists. The Head Constable fired at other terrorists but same was missed and the terrorists ran away. There were two to three terrorists in the school, who started firing at the police officials. In the meantime, petitioner alongwith his party also reached on the spot and he fired from his pistol three rounds in the direction of the terrorists. The terrorists also started firing from automatic weapons and the petitioner's party had to retreat and inform immediately the Station House Officer at the police station. One of the injured terrorists was grappled by Jai Kumar and the other terrorists ran away with their weapons. Constable Jai Kumar was able to take into possession a A.K. 56 rifle of the terrorists which was later on deposited with the police station. As neither the petitioner nor his partymen were trained to operate A.K. 56 rifle, they had to return back to the Police station. On report of this incident, the Superintendent of Police, Jind, suspended the petitioner on November 24, 1991 and sent a report to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Hisar Range, Hisar to this effect. Petitioner was transferred to Police Lines, Jind. On December 5, 1991, the D.I.G., Hisar, without calling for any explanation and without issuing any show cause notice, removed the name of the petitioner from List 'D' and also reverted him to the post of Head Constable from the date aforesaid. In addition to the orders passed, as have been referred to above, departmental enquiry was also ordered against the petitioner and he was issued a charge-sheet. The main charge against the petitioner was that he along with Constables Hukam Chand, Jai Kumar, Laj Pat and Jaivir was deputed for Naka duty near village Pipaltha and when the above mentioned incident happened, he had not remained there and instead had come to the police station. This, in view of the allegations of charges framed against the petitioner, amounted to dereliction of duty and gross indiscipline and a proof of cowardice. In the departmental enquiry conducted against the petitioner, the officer concerned i.e. the Enquiry Officer exonerated him of the charges framed against him. When, however, the report of the Enquiry Officer reached the Superintendent of Police, Jind he was of the view that the petitioner should not have been exonerated of the charges framed against him. It is not disputed between learned counsel for the parties that the Superintendent of Police was competent to agree or disagree with the report of the Enquiry Officer, being the Punishing Authority. The Superintendent of Police, as mentioned above, since did not agree with report of the Enquiry Officer, he issued a show cause notice to the petitioner conveying him that the case against him for censure had been made out. The petitioner, in consequence of the notice issued to him, appeared and sought to support the findings recorded by the Enquiry Office. However, by disagreeing with the Enquiry Officer, the Superintendent of Police proceeded in the matter to record a finding against the petitioner. After mentioning the facts of the case, the Superintendent of Police recorded that he was in disagreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The reasons for disagreement, if at all they can be called the reasons, need to be mentioned here in the words of the Superintendent of Police himself. The same read thus:
(3.) Mr. Balhara, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that order, Annexure P-2, removing the name of petitioner from list 'D' and reverting him to the post of Head Constable, very adversely affected him in his service career and such an order which affects a citizen, and has attached to it evil consequences, could not be passed without hearing the petitioner in the matter. Not only the petitioner was not given a show cause notice, he was not at any given stage issued a charge-sheet and his reply was never asked for. In fact and reality, it is after passing of order Annexure P-2, that the departmental proceedings were started which, as mentioned above, resulted into returning of a finding of 'not guilty.' It is further the contention of Mr. Balhara that the Punishing Authority i.e the Superintendent of Police, even though had power and jurisdiction to disagree with the report of the Enquiry Officer, he had to do so by a process of reasoning based upon evidence that might have been recorded during the enquiry proceedings. Nothing of the kind was done and simply by assuming that the petitioner had won over the witnesses during the currency of the departmental proceedings against him, a finding of guilt was recorded. It is further the contention of Mr. Balhara that the Appellate Authority i.e. the D.I.G., before whom the appeal was preferred against both the orders, referred to above, simply rejected the appeal by one word which obviously contained no reasons whatsoever.