MANJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 05.10.2013 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Superintendent of Police, Rewari-respondent No.4, whereby petitioner has been dismissed from his service under Article 311 (2)(b) of the Constitution of India. Challenge has also been raised to the subsequent orders dated 18.02.2014 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Inspector General of Police-respondent No.3, whereby the appeals have been dismissed and the order dated 04.05.2015 (Annexure P- 8), by which the revision petition had been dismissed by respondent No.2- Director General of Police.

(2.) The pleaded case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Constable on 24.12.2004 and was having excellent service record and had been promoted as Head Constable on 03.05.2012. On account of the false criminal case registered against him on 24.10.2013 under Sections 323, 307 IPC, Police Station Dharuhera, Rewari, he was dismissed from service by exercising the powers under Article 311 (2)(b). He had been acquitted vide judgment dated 03.02.2014 (Annexure P-2). His appeal had been dismissed on 18.02.2014 (Annexure P-4) and thereafter, his revision petition had been dismissed on the ground of delay. CWP-5167-2015 had been filed which had quashed the said order passed by respondent No.2 and the case was remanded to pass a detailed order which led to the passing of the order dated 04.05.2015 (Annexure P-8), which is now subject matter of challenge. Resultantly, it is his case that no reasons have been given as to why it was not practical to hold a regular enquiry, especially once a criminal case had been registered in which he had been acquitted. Resultantly, he had been given no chance to prove his innocence and the judgment of the Apex Court in Sudesh Kumar v. State of Haryana 2005 (11) SCC 525 has been relied upon. Reliance has also been placed upon Rule 16.3 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, to contend that once there was acquittal, he could not be departmentally punished.

(3.) State, on the other hand, in its written statement, justified the said order on the ground that one Inderjit, who was an employee of a scrap dealer-Dharmender, had been asked to bring a pint of Signature brand liquor at the shop of the dealer by the petitioner. On refusal, the petitioner had started beating him and put petrol on him and lit the fire with intention to cause death. On the registraton of the FIR No.431 dated 24.10.2013, the factual aspect had been got verified by Shri Tahir Hussain, DSP, Rewari and keeping in view the contents of the FIR in the report and the critical condition of the victim, who was stated to be admitted in Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi, in a serious condition with 40- 45% burn injuries, the dismissal order was passed.