ASI RAM PARTAP Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this order, we propose to dispose of three writ petitions i.e. C.W.P. No. 13095 of 2007, C.W.P. No. 13141 of 2007 and C.W.P. No. 13133 of 2007 as common questions of facts and law are involved.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that ASI Ram Partap, ASI Balbir Singh, Head Constable Prem Singh, Head Constable Rambir and Head Constable Pala Ram were taking the accused Harnek Singh, son of Balbir Singh, who was in their custody and on police remand, to Chandigarh for effecting recovery in a Government vehicle. On their return journey from Chandigarh to Ambala, Harnek Singh jumped from the vehicle and ran away along with his hand -cuffs. The accused was under the control of Head Constable Rambir Singh and Head Constable Pala Ram. A charge -sheet was issued to all the three Petitioners as well as Head Constable Pala Ram and Head Constable Rambir. On enquiry all the three Petitioners in the above -mentioned three writ petitions, were exonerated and Head Constable Rambir and Head Constable Pala Ram were incriminated. The Superintendent of Police, Ambala -Respondent No. 3 agreeing with the enquiry report inflicted the punishment of dismissal from service of both the delinquent officials. The effect thereof was that the exoneration of all the three Petitioners in the three writ petitions stood confirmed. Head Constable Rambir and Head Constable Pala Ram filed two separate appeals before the Inspector General of Police, Ambala Range, Ambala -Respondent No. 3 against the order of dismissal who dismissed their appeals on 24th November, 2005. Thereafter, Head Constable Rambir and Head Constable Pala Ram preferred revision petition before the Director General of Police, Haryana -Respondent No. 2. Their revision petitions were partly allowed and keeping in view the length of service, a lenient view was taken by Respondent No. 2 and the order of dismissal from service was reduced to stoppage of four increments with permanent effect.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the Director General of Police, Haryana -Respondent No. 2 passed while exercising his powers under Rule 16.28 of the Punjab Police Rules, as applicable to State of Haryana (hereinafter referred to as 1934 Rules), the Petitioners filed first appeal from the original order to the State Government under Rule 16.29 of the 1934 Rules. Respondent No. 1, - -vide his order dated 3rd January, 2007 (Annexure P -12) dismissed the three appeals preferred by the writ Petitioners by passing a speaking order of even date on the ground that this was a second appeal and therefore, not maintainable in accordance with the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, as applicable to State of Haryana.