KRISHAN GOPAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for directing the respondents to absorb the petitioner in the C.I.D. Wing of the Police Department and to quash his repatriation to the Police Wing of the Department.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner joined service of the Police Department, Punjab as head constable on 1.5.1958. In the year 1972, he was deputed to the Intelligence Wing of the Police Department, which is popularly known as C.I.D. While working in the C.I.D. Wing, the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Sub Inspector in the year 1985 and then as Sub Inspector. On 30.4.1996, the petitioner was given a notice to explain why disciplinary action be not taken against, him due to his failure to take interest in the official duties and consuming of liquor while on duty. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 7.5.1996 and ten days thereafter the Additional Director General of Police, Intelligence, Punjab passed the impugned order Annexure P-4 repatriating the petitioner from C.I.D. Wing to his parent cadre. This order has been challenged by the petitioner on the following grounds :-

(3.) In the reply, the respondents No. 1, 2, 3 and 5 have pleaded that the petitioner was taken on deputation in the C.I.D. Wing on 27.9.1981 at his own request and not in the year 1972 as claimed by him. The respondents have alleged that the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Sub Inspector in his parent department on 9.1.1983. Thereafter, he was promoted as ad hoc Sub Inspector on 15.1.1987 against C.I.D. vacancies. The respondents have pleaded that on receipt of a report from the Superintendent of Police (Security), C.I.D., Punjab (Annexure R-3), the explanation of the petitioner was called for regarding his habit of consuming wine while on duty and not taking of interest in the maintenance of the Government vehicles even while he was posted in M.T., C.I.D. Headquarters. The respondents have stated that as a deputationist, the petitioner has no right to be absorbed in the services of the C.I.D. Wing and action of the respondents to repatriate him to the parent cadre does not affect any of his legal or fundamental rights.