SANJEEV KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA ETC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this writ petition, the petitioner is praying for quashing of the order dated 19.09.2006 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Superintendent of Police, Gurgaon-respondent No. 4 by which penalty of stoppage of three future increments with permanent effect has been imposed and quashing of the order dated 19.09.2006 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Superintendent of Police, Gurgaon-respondent No. 4 by which the petitioner has been discharged from service with immediate effect under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules. Further prayer for quashing of the order passed by the Inspector General of Police, Gurgaon Range, Gurgaon (Annexure P-8) and the order dated 13.08.2008 (Annexure P-11) passed by the Director General of Police, Haryana-respondent No. 3.

(2.) It is the contention of the petitioner that the order Annexure P-7 passed by respondent No. 4 under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police rules as applicable to Haryana, has been passed in pursuance to the order dated 19.09.2006 (Annexure P-6) passed by the same authority and, therefore, the order Annexure P-7 is not an simplicitor order of discharge but is based on P-6, which is a punishment imposed upon him and stoppage of three future increments with permanent effect on the basis of a departmental enquiry conducted against him. In view of the fact that the order has been passed, which is based on a punishment order (Annexure P-7), thus cannot be sustained and this Court should look into the same and unveil the reasons behind the passing of order of discharge simplicitor, which, as a matter of fact, is punitive in nature and, therefore, cannot be disguised in such a manner to show that it is an order of discharge simpliciter. It is further the contention of the petitioner that the appeals preferred by the petitioner having been dismissed by the appellate authorities, as being not maintainable, cannot be sustained as these orders are not orders in real sense under the provisions of Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules but, as a matter of fact, is a punishment and, therefore, appealable under the provisions of the Punjab Police Rules, as applicable to Haryana. While the impugning order (Annexure P-6), which is an order, where a punishment of stoppage of three increments with commutative effect has been imposed, the counsel for the petitioner contends that the same having been passed after holding a departmental enquiry, the order Annexure P-7 could not have been passed because that would amount to double jeopardy as one punishment has already been imposed upon the petitioner and he cannot be punished twice for the same lapse.

(3.) We have heard the counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case. The petitioner was appointed as a Constable in Haryana Police on 15.10.2003. The petitioner was served with a Memorandum of Charge dated 20.11.2005, wherein the allegations against the petitioner were that he was absent from duty from March 2005, while being posted in Police Lines, Gurgaon for a period of 40 days. Another charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 22.12.2005 with an allegation that he was deputed for traffic duty on 01.05.2005 but he did not report there and did not come back. He joined his duties after remaining absent for 31 days and thereafter, again proceeded on two days' casual leave on 07.06.2005 and reported back after an absence of 151 days, thus, in total there was absence of 182 days.