GURCHARAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On October 17, 1980 the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ferozepur Range, Ferozepur, passed an order by which the petitioner's two years' service was ordered to be forfeited with permanent effect. The petitioner filed an appeal to the Inspector General of Police. It was rejected vide order dated June 3, 1981. Copies of these orders have been produced as Annexures P-5 and P-7 with the writ petition. The petitioner prays that these orders be set aside and consequential relief be granted to him. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) In August, 1975, the petitioner was posted as Station House Officer, Police Station Samana. On May 29, 1978, he was served with a charge sheet alleging inter alia that he had detained Gurbachan Singh Sarpanch of Village Achral Khurd, Amar Singh and others at Police Station, Samana. When he was approached by the respectables of the area he had demanded Rs. 1500/- for their release. Ultimately, the Sarpanch had paid Rs. 900/- as illegal gratification.

(3.) These charges were inquired into. The Inquiry Officer found that the allegations against the petitioner were not proved. The conclusions recorded by the Inquiry Officer were accepted by the punishing authority viz, the Senior Superintendent of Police. However, when the matter came to the notice of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, he vide his order dated January 22, 1980, found that the conclusions recorded by the Inquiry Officer were not tenable. He gave detailed reasons and directed the issue of a notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why his service of four years be not forfeited with permanent effect. Copy of the reasons recorded by the Deputy Inspector General of Police for disagreeing with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer and the Senior Superintendent of Police (which is Annexure P-2 with the writ petition) was also supplied to the petitioner along with the show cause notice. The petitioner submitted a detailed representation running into 11 pages. On a consideration of the matter, he rejected the representation vide his order date October 17, 1980. He found that the charge of illegally detaining the persons was fully proved against the petitioner. However, taking a lenient view, he ordered the forfeiture of only two years' service with permanent effect. The petitioner's appeal against the order having been rejected by the Inspector General of Police vide his order dated June 3, 1981, he has approached this court through the present petition. The orders dated October 17, 1980 and June 3, 1981 have been impugned in this petition.