KABUL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner joined the Punjab Police as a Constable on 14.10.1986. On 23.6.1989 i.e. within three years of his employment, he was involved in a case under sections 366 and 376 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered against him and others in Police Station City Kharar. The trial court vide its judgment dated 28.8.1990 (Annexure P-1) however giving the benefit of doubt to the petitioner, acquitted him of the charge. It appears that soon after the case aforesaid had been registered against the petitioner the Senior Superintendent of Police by virtue of the powers conferred on him under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') discharged the petitioner vide order dated 26.6.1989 (Annexure P.2) with the remarks that his services were no longer required as he was not likely to make a good police officer. The petitioner represented against the order Annexure P.2 and this representation too was dismissed vide order Annexure P.3 dated 1.10.1990. A further representation taken by the petitioner to the Director General of Police Punjab was also dismissed on 14.6.1991 vide Annexure P.4 to the petition. Aggrieved thereby the present petition has been filed.

(2.) Notice issued in this case and a reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents and the stand taken is that the order Annexure P.2 had been made on 26th June, 1989 on an overall assessment of the petitioner's case and not on the basis of any particular mis-conduct that had been committed by him. It was further submitted that the action was fully justifiable under the Rules as the same did not visualise any show cause notice before the order was made.

(3.) Mr. Gulati, the learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that though the order of discharge (Annexure P.2) under Rule 12.21 was in terms of the rules, yet the same being a stigmatic it could not have been passed unless and until the petitioner had been given chance to show cause against the action that was proposed to be taken against him. In this connection, he has relied on two judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and another v. Jagdish Chander, 1995 2 SCT 427and Rajinder Kaur v. Punjab State and another, 1986 3 SLR 78. He has further pointed out that by the time the two orders Annexures P.3 and P.4 dated 1.10.1990 and 14.5.1991 were passed, the petitioner had also been acquitted of the criminal charge against him and this factor had not been taken into account whatsoever by the Deputy Inspector General of Police and for this additional reason the petition was liable to succeed.