SURINDER SINGH EX CONSTABLE Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Constable Surinder Singh, No. 1287 has filed the present writ petition against the State of Punjab, Inspector General of Police, Deputy Inspector General of Police and Senior Superintendent of Police, Punjab, seeking the direction of this Court in the nature of writ of certiorari for the quashment of the impugned order of his dismissal from service dated 9.2.1984, Annexure P-3, the order dated 31.8.194, Annexure P-4 and the order dated 17.4.1995, Annexure P-5. The petitioner has claimed his reinstatement with all consequential benefits on the ground that he joined the Police Department, Punjab, in the year 1990 and his work and conduct remained satisfactory and unblemished during the above period. He served the department sincerely and honestly. He was posted as a Constable at Police Post, Ghuman Mandi, under Police Station, Civil Lines, Ludhiana, on 15.7.1992 when the petitioner became mentally upset, the Incharge of the Police Post, Kuldip Singh instructed a Home Guard Jawan Jang Singh to leave the petitioner as his residential house at village Kohrian as he was under mental disorder vide Rapat No. 9 dated 15.7.1992 and leave for our days was also sanctioned on this ground. On 16.7.1992, the petitioner was taken to a clinic of Dr. Gurmeet Singh in Bank Colony, Patiala, who is an expert in such diseases. The petitioner remained under his treatment from 16.7.1992 to 12.1.1993 as Out Door Patient. He was advised complete rest and was asked to get him check up every week. The petitioner was not in senses during the period from 16.7.1992 to 12.1.1993. As and when Dr. Gurmeet Singh declared the petitioner fit to join duty, the petitioner went to join duty vide rapt No. 8 dated 13.1.1993 and he was allowed to join his duty but he was treated absent for the period from 20.7.1992 to 12.1.1993. However, the petitioner, served upto 8.2.1994. Inspector Sukhdev Singh was appointed as Inquiry Officer to conduct an inquiry into the allegations of absence from duty against the petitioner, who conducted the inquiry and recorded the statements. In the inquiry report, Annexure P-2, inquiry officer concluded that the petitioner was under mental disorder but he had not sent any information or leave and, in these circumstances, the absence from duty against the petitioner stands proved. On 31.1.1994, on the basis of the inquiry report, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner replied to the show cause notice in which he stated that he was handed over to his parents by the Home Guard employee Jang Singh No. 17379 on the instructions of ASI Kuldip Singh, Incharge, Police Post, Ghuman Mandi, and four days leave was also granted to him. During the period of his illness, the father of the petitioner visited the Police Post and stated the position of the petitioner regarding his mental disorder. The father of the petitioner also sent a telegram which was handed over to the inquiry officer but no entry was made in this regard. Finally, respondent No. 4 dismissed the petitioner from the service. The petitioner filed a revision before the Inspector General of Police, which was also rejected on 17.4.1995. The petitioner also filed a petition for mercy to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Punjab, which has not been decided so far inspite of repeated reminders. The petitioner has challenged the impugned orders mainly on the ground that the punishment of dismissal can be awarded only for the gravest act of the misconduct. Mere absence from duty could not be treated as an act of gravest misconduct, when such absence was not wilful and, in these circumstances, the order of dismissal was totally unjustified. The punishing authority and the appellate authority did not take into consideration the various ingredients of rule 16.2 of the Police Rules and both the authorities failed to take note of the fact as to whether the delinquent officer had actually committed the gravest act of misconduct or not. The impugned orders have been passed in clear disregard to rule 16.2 of the Police Rules inspite of the fact that the petitioner has been able to prove that he was a case of mental disorder and this was even admitted and concluded by the inquiry officer in the report. It is further alleged by the petitioner that the impugned orders, Annexures P-3 to P-5 have been passed in an arbitrary manner and against the principles of natural justice. The orders are without jurisdiction, unconstitutional and against the provisions of Punjab Police Rules.

(2.) With the above main allegations, the petitioner has prayed for the setting aside of the impugned orders.

(3.) The notice of the writ petition was given to the respondents who filed a joint written statement and a preliminary objection has been taken that the present writ petition has been filed at a belated stage because the last order was passed by the competent authority on 17.4.1995.