CONSTABLE NARANJAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a constable in the Punjab Police is aggrieved by the order dated May 14, 1996. By this Order, it was held that the petitioner had remained absent from duty. He was awarded a penalty of forfeiture of five years' service permanently. The petitioner's appeal having been rejected on the ground that it was barred by limitation, he has filed the present writ petition.

(2.) THE solitary contention raised by Mr. H. S. Man, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that after his acquittal by the Court, the department could not have started disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and awarded the impugned penalty. Learned Counsel has placed reliance on the provision of Rule 16. 3 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934. He has also referred to the decisions in Mohinder Pal v. State of Punjab and others, 1987 (1) SLR 226. Sulekh Chand and Salek Chand v. Commissioner of Police and others, JT 1995 (1) SC 23 and Sri Kundan Lal v. The Delhi Administration Delhi and others. 1976 (1) SLR 133.

(3.) MR . Mann submits that the action was contrary to the provisions of Rule 16. 3.