RAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was recruited as a constable on April 20, 1989. He was discharged from the police force on September 16, 1991. Alleging that a copy of the order had not been supplied to him, he approached this court through Civil Writ Petition No. 6241 of 1993. During the pendency of this writ petition and under the directions of the court, the respondents produced the order of discharge with an affidavit of Mr. Anil Dawra, IPS, Superintendent of Police, Hissar on November 5, 1993. It is stated that the writ petition was rendered infructuous. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present writ petition so as to impugn the order of discharge which had been actually passed on September 16, 1991. It is alleged that the order is punitive as it has been passed on account of a specific allegation. Even otherwise, the petitioner maintains that the order is arbitrary. He prays that the order be quashed.

(2.) The respondents controvert the petitioner's claim. It has been inter alia averred that the petition suffers from the vice of delay and laches. It has been further pointed out that the petitioner had got sanctioned two days' casual leave from the Station House Officer, Police Station, Ratia. While going, he did not "hand over his arm and ammunition" to his Incharge or any official or guard. On August 24, 1991, it was recorded that the petitioner was absent and there was no information about the arm and ammunition entrusted to him. He had reported back for duty on August 26, 1991 to 10.30 AM. It has been admitted that the cartridges had been left by the petitioner in the box of constable Angrez Singh. He had locked the box and kept the keys. On these facts, it has been averred that the petitioner was "unlikely to prove an efficient police officer". The respondents, thus, pray that the writ petition be dismissed.

(3.) This case had come up for hearing on November 6, 1997 before a Bench of this Court of which one of us (Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.) was a member. It was stated on behalf of the petitioner that his daughter was born with a congenital deformity. She had undergone surgery. On August 24, 1991, the petitioner was informed that the stitches had been damaged. He had to rush to take care of his daughter. After getting the needful done, he had reported for duty within two days. Even with regard to the weapon and ammunition, it was explained that these had been left with one of the colleagues. On this basis, it was prayed that the petitioner who is a youngman deserved to be allowed to continue in service. The case was adjourned to enable counsel for the respondents to obtain instructions as the Bench felt that the Director General of Police, Haryana should reconsider the matter.