MAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was serving as Sub Inspector in Haryana Armed Police, was dismissed from service due to his conviction for offences under Sections 148, 325, 307, 323, 149 IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act. The petitioner would claim that he was falsely implicated in this FIR due to party faction in his village. He would also say that this conviction had no connection with his official duties. The petitioner would also make reference to his service record, wherein he having joined the police as Constable on 16.7.1964, had arisen to the rank of Sub Inspector, to which he was promoted on 1.1.1986. The petitioner claims to his credit 70 commendation certificates/cash awards and would also plead that he has never been served any charge or memo of charges throughout his service career.

(2.) The petitioner was convicted for these offences as aforementioned on 26.7.1989. Still, an order permitting the petitioner to serve beyond the age of 55 years was passed on 3.10.2002. The petitioner had appealed against his conviction and the sentence awarded to him was reduced to the period already undergone coupled with a direction to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. The petitioner was due to superannuate w.e.f 31.7.2004. Still the impugned order, dismissing the petitioner from service was passed on 2.4.2004. The petitioner had impugned this order by filing appeal, followed by supplementary appeal but both the appeals were dismissed on 28.9.2005. His plea for mercy was also declined on 14.8.2006. The petitioner thereafter has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) The respondents would justify the impugned order and would say that it was passed in accordance with law. The sentence awarded to the petitioner was reduced to a period already undergone coupled with fine of Rs. 10,000/- for other offences and he was sentenced for one year rigorous imprisonment for an offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act and for this he was released on probation. Referring to the order of conviction and sentence passed in respect of the petitioner, the respondents would justify the order of dismissal. As per the reply, respondent No. 4 had applied his mind as per the provisions contained in Rule 16.2(2) of the Punjab Police Rules, while directing dismissal of the petitioner from service. Accordingly, the respondents has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.