NAVEEN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an ex-Constable of Haryana Police. He was dismissed from service after inquiry on the charge that while under the influence of alcohol, he along with ex-Constable Samundar Singh had together beaten up two Constables of the same Department in a fight. The charge was proven by the inquiry officer in his report. The Superintendent of Police, Faridabad accepted the inquiry report and dismissed the petitioner from service on July 30, 2005 after receiving comments of the delinquent employee in his defence. The appeal was rejected by the Inspector General of Police, Gurgaon Range, Gurgaon on October 10, 2005. The revision before the Director General of Police, Haryana failed on March 11, 2006. Aggrieved by the dismissal order, the petitioner approached the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurgaon, for setting aside the punishment order praying for reinstatement. The trial court dismissed the suit on January 14, 2012. Appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon was dismissed on July 04, 2014. Regular Second Appeal was likewise dismissed by this Court on May 18, 2015.

(2.) On July 14, 2016, the petitioner moved a representation to the Director General of Police, Haryana pleading a case of discrimination pointing out that one ex-Constable named Gordhan, who was also dismissed from service, but on a representation was reinstated to service and accordingly the same treatment should be given to his case despite dismissal of the Regular Second Appeal by this Court against the order of punishment.

(3.) The petitioner has not appended, but has produced an order dated November 19, 2008 passed by the Inspector General of Police, Faridabad Range, Faridabad for perusal of this Court, which is taken on record as Mark 'A' to substantiate his claim to parity and equal treatment with Gordhan. A perusal of the order reveals that Gordhan was dismissed from service for absence from duty. He had explained in his memorial as a mitigating circumstance that he was suffering from typhoid and was under treatment during the relevant period September 05, 2006 to October 27, 2006 and that sufficiently explained the disputed absence from duty. He had also completed 19 years of service which was by itself a mitigating circumstance when the act of misconduct was not of the gravest kind enumerated in Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 as applicable to Haryana. This salutary protection built in the rule was disregarded by the authority while dismissing Gordhan since his case for pension was not considered at the time when the order was passed nor the gravity of the charge of misconduct.