(1.) The petitioner an Assistant Sub Inspector of Police was charge -sheeted for having contracted a second marriage during the life time of his first wife. After the completion of the proceedings, the petitioner was ordered to be dismissed from service by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana, vide order dated November 30, 1996. A copy of this order has been produced as Annexure P-7 with the Writ petition. The petitioner filed an appeal. It was dismissed by the Deputy Inspector General vide order dated April 3, 1997. A copy of this order has been produced as Annexure P 9 with the Writ petition. Undaunted, the petitioner filed a Revision petition. It was rejected by the Director General of Police vide Order dated November 4, 1997. This is Annexure P 11 with the Writ petition. Aggrieved by the three orders, the petitioner has approached this Court.
(2.) Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, learned Counsel for the petitioner. contends, inter alia, that the action of the respondents in ordering the dismissal of the petitioner is wholly contrary to the provisions of the Rules. He submits that there was denial of reasonable opportunity. The prescribed procedure was not followed. It is also contended that even the provision of Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules. which requires the concerned Authority to take into consideration "the length of service of the offender and his claim to pension", was rot even noticed. On these premises the Counsel contends that the impugned orders are vitiated.
(3.) The claim made on behalf of the petitioner has been controverted by Mr. Berry, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.