STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. KIRPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE constitutional validity of the Instruction No. 21146-206/b dated the 25th of august, 1964, issued by the Inspector General of Police, Punjab, to all Heads of the Police Offices, and also its conflict with the relevant Punjab Police Rules are the primary questions which fall for determination in these five Letters Patent Appeals (159, 137, 165 of 1969, 471 and 527 of 1968) and two writ petitions (2245 and 2348 of 1968 ). Common questions of law and fact, arise in these cases and we deem it expedient to deal with all of them by this judgment.

(2.) THE facts in Letters Patent Appeal No. 159 of 1969 (The State of Punjab v. Kirpal Singh) alone may be first noticed in detail. The respondent Kirpal Singh enlisted as a Foot Constable in the Punjab Police in 1941 and after promotion as head Constable was confirmed as such in the year 1951. Dismissed on a charge of corruption after a departmental enquiry, he was, however, reinstated on the 18th of February, 1956, and subsequently his name was brought on the provisional list 'd' maintained under Rule 13. 9 of the Punjab Police Rules in the year 1957. Having qualified in the Intermediate School Course at the Police Training School at Phillaur in 1961, the name of the respondent was placed on the confirmed list 'd' under the rule above said. Thereafter, he was promoted as an officiating Asstt. Sub-Inspector and his name appeared at No. 1 in the 'd' list whilst the other respondents in the writ petition filed by him figured below him. In October 1964, whilst attached to the Criminal Investigation Agency of the Government Railway police at Ambala Cantonment the respondent was implicated and tried on a criminal charge along with one Rameshwar pick-pocket and was convicted by the special Railway Magistrate, Ambala Cantonment, under Section 221, Indian Penal code. On appeal, however, he was acquitted on the 21st of April, 1967, and was subsequently reinstated in service on the 26th of May, 1967. Subsequently a State appeal against his acquittal was dismissed in limine by a Division Bench of the high Court on the 14th of September, 1967.

(3.) ACCORDING to the allegations in the writ petition by the respondent Kirpal Singh, during the period of 29 months, for which he remained suspended owing to the above said criminal case, a number of officiating Assistant Sub-Inspectors junior to him were sent to undergo the Upper School Course Training at Phillaur and on completion thereof were confirmed as Assistant Sub-Inspectors and subsequently also promoted as Sub-Inspectors of the Police. These allegations, however, stand denied on behalf of the State. It is also the admitted case that two adverse reports dated the 30th of November, 1964, and the 22nd of April, 1965, suggesting unreliability, corruption and harbouring of criminals were conveyed to the respondent and his representations against these adverse reports were rejected after consideration. In September, 1967, after his reinstatement, Kirpal Singh respondent applied for being deputed for training in the Upper School Course at phillaur but the Assistant Inspector General of Police declined the request on the ground that as yet the appeal filed by the State against his acquittal was still pending in the High Court. The respondent then represented and interviewed the inspector General of Police, Punjab, and was informed that the selection for the upper School Course was to be made by a Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as Committee) consisting of the Deputy Inspector General of Police of the range and two Superintendents of Police. The respondent appeared before this Committee but was not selected, but later on the 26th of March, 1968, he appeared before this Committee and was recommended for training but since he was over-age his case was sent for approval to the Inspector General of Police for relaxation of the age limit The Inspector General of Police directed the respondent to appear before another Committee which after interviewing him made a conditional order that if there were good reports of the respondent during the next 6 months and further that the district authorities recommended him then the respondent would be sent for the Upper School Course at Phillaur. In september, 1968, Shri Daljit Singh Dhillon, Assistant Inspector General of Police made only one recommendation pertaining to the respondent for the relaxation of the age limit and the matter was considered by a Committee consisting of Shri A. S. Midha, Deputy Inspector General of Police [c. I. D.), Shri Parkash Chand,, assistant Inspector General of Police (I) and Shri B. R. Kapoor, Assistant Inspector general of Police (II ). This Committee, however, rejected the name of the respondent without interviewing him and the allegations of the respondent in the writ petition were that this rejection was based on the warnings and adverse remarks earlier communicated to him and also for the reason that he had not been confirmed as an Assistant Sub-Inspector. These allegations are not admitted on behalf of the State and the position taken up was that the Committee had taken into consideration the record of the respondent Kirpal Singh as a whole and therefore, did not recommend his name for relaxation of the prescribed age limit. The respondent then filed the writ petition which stands allowed by the learned single Judge and is the subject-matter of the appeal under Clause 10 of the letters Patent.