DHARAM PAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner, a Police Officer, stands dismissed from service for getting a statement of prosecutrix recorded in a Court under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure One may wonder what offence he has committed to face dismissal and lose over 37 years of service. If there could be an answer to this, then it is available in the form of allegation that the Petitioner got the statement recorded without taking permission of his senior. The Petitioner was the Investigating Officer in the case. Was he to take permission for this ? Dismissal from service is his fate. He has, thus, challenged his fate -the punishment of dismissal. Even providence does not seem to be in his favour. The Petitioner is detected to be suffering from cancer. When the adversities come, these come in plenty. That seems to be so for the Petitioner. He is before the Court seeking priority hearing of his writ petition, which was admitted on 20th January, 2009, to be heard within one year.

(2.) PERSON suffering from such deadly disease should not suffer delay in decision of his fate. Writ would deserve priority hearing and so is taken up for hearing straightway.

(3.) THE trouble for the Petitioner would start now. It is alleged that Petitioner knew the case to be a false but still, got statement of the complainant recorded under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure before JMIC, Siwani without informing the senior officers. This was enough for the seniors to suspend the Petitioner, on 11th June, 2007. It is not clear if gravamen of the allegation is for recording statement or for doing so without permission. Charge -sheet dated 24th August, 2007 was prepared against the Petitioner and served on him. He is accused of fabricating false evidence by getting the statement of the prosecutrix recorded in the Court. One would wonder how this allegation would stand against him.