MASSA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner is aggrieved of the action of the Respondents in initiating fresh enquiry against him, - -vide order (Annexure P -6) and also the fresh charge -sheet (Annexure P -9) besides the retrospective suspension, - -vide order (Annexure P -5). He has also sought a direction for revoking his suspension and a further direction in the nature of mandamus to allow him to perform his duties with all consequential benefits of arrears etc. alongwith interest. Before dwelling into the issue involved in this petition, it is necessary to briefly notice the facts of case.

(2.) THE Petitioner was recruited as a Constable in the year 1975 in Punjab Police Department at Jalandhar. He was inducted as a Constable in the 36th Battalion PAP and thereafter transferred to 80th Battalion PAP in the year 1982. While serving in 80th Battalion, he was placed under suspension, - -vide order dated 9th March, 1988 on the allegations of creating nuisance in the mess under the influence of liquor. Suspension was followed by an enquiry which proved him guilty of charge. Consequently, he was dismissed from service, - -vide order dated 24th May, 1988. Vide the same order, he was denied the full salary and other emoluments, except the subsistence allowance for the period under suspension from 9th March, 1988 to 24th May, 1988. An appeal preferred by the Petitioner before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, PAP (Admn.), Jalandhar Cantt. resulted into dismissal, - -vide his order, dated 6th January, 1989. The Petitioner challenged the order of dismissal and that of the appellate authority in Civil Court. The suit filed by the Petitioner was decreed , - -vide judgment, dated 6th March, 1992 (Annexure P -l) passed by the Sub Judge, 2nd Class, Jalandhar and -the order of dismissal, the appellate order and the enquiry proceedings were declared illegal, void and not binding upon the Petitioner and consequently set aside. The appeal preferred against the aforesaid judgment before the Additional District Judge (Ad hoc), Jalandhar was dismissed , - -vide its judgment, dated 2nd February, 2005. Regular Second Appeal No. 2402 of 2005 filed before this Court was also dismissed , - -vide its judgment, dated 22nd December, 2005. Not being satisfied with the dismissal of the Regular Second Appeal, the Respondents -State filed a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which also resulted in dismissal, - - vide order, dated 7th July, 2006. Having lost the battle throughout upto the last Court, the Respondents -State, - -vide its order, dated 28th December, 2006 (Annexure P -5) reinstated and allowed the Petitioner to join duty. Simultaneously, he was placed under suspension from the date of dismissal i.e. 24th May, 1988. A fresh Departmental enquiry -was also ordered against him with subsistence allowance equal to half pay. Vide a subsequent order dated 1st February, 2007 (Annexure P -6), a fresh departmental enquiry was initiated and one Mohan Singh, PPS, Assistant Comd. 8th Battalian was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The enquiry officer was, however, replaced by another Enquiry Officer, Shri Navjot Singh, DSP vide order dated 10th January, 2008 (Annexure P -7). The Petitioner filed his objections to the initiation of fresh enquiry, - -vide his representation, dated 21st January, 2008 (Annexure P -8). Without considering the representation, the Petitioner was served with summary of allegations (Annexure P -9) by the Enquiry Officer. It is against the aforesaid orders (Annexures P -5, P -6, P -7 and P -9) the Petitioner has approached this Court.

(3.) A bare reading of the said Rule denotes that this rule relates to further enquiry and not the fresh/de novo enquiry. Rather the fresh charge -sheet is based upon the same set of circumstances. Otherwise also, I am of the considered view that once the order of dismissal and the appellate order have been set aside by the Civil Court and the order of the civil court has been upheld upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Respondents cannot be permitted to re -agitate and re -determine the issue a fresh and nullify the judgment and decree of the Civil Court by their administrative action . Apart from that, fresh enquiry is not sustainable in law. The Respondents have placed the Petitioner under suspension retrospectively with effect from the date of his dismissal in the year 1988 which order has been quashed by the Civil Court and has attained finality. Such an action is also contrary to all canons of justice.