VARINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the present writ petition, the petitioner has not only impugned his order of dismissal from service passed on 22.5.2007 and order rejecting the appeal against the said order, but has also impugned an order of his reversion from the rank of Sub Inspector to that of Assistant Sub Inspector, Police as was ordered on 30.12.2006. In addition, the petitioner would also impugn the department enquiry and the inquiry report on the basis of which the orders of dismissal and reversion have been passed.

(2.) While issuing notice of motion, this Court did not find any merit in the plea raised by the petitioner that the enquiry proceedings were not conducted fairly. While negating the plea of the petitioner in this regard, the Court observed :-

(3.) Similarly, the plea of the petitioner that before initiating the proceedings against him permission was required to be obtained from the District Magistrate but had not been so obtained was also not accepted by the Court. It is only third limb of the argument raised by the counsel that the appointing authority of Sub Inspector is Superintendent of Police, yet under Rule 13.3 the promoting authority is Deputy Inspector General of Police. It was accordingly pleaded that S.P. would not have any power to dismiss the petitioner from service. On this aspect, notice of motion was issued. It is, thus, clear that this is the only ground which is required to be considered and adjudicated.