Rajinder Singh And Another vs U.T.Chandigah And Others on 8 February, 2013

[Cites 5, Cited by 6]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Rajinder Singh And Another vs U.T.Chandigah And Others on 8 February, 2013

Bench: Surya Kant

CWP No. 19146 of 2011                                          -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH


                                      CWP No. 19146 of 2011

                                      Date of decision: 08.02.2013


Rajinder Singh and another

                                                        ..... Petitioners


                   Versus




U.T.Chandigah and others

                                                        ..... Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
       HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.P. NAGRATH

PRESENT: Mr. Pawan Gaur, Advocate for the petitioners.

            Mr. Vivek Sharma, Standing Counsel for U.T. Chandigarh.


SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)

The petitioners-Rajinder Singh and Harwant Singh, were recruited as Constables in Chandigarh Police in the year 1983 and 1991, respectively. The 2nd petitioner who joined in the year 1991 had earlier served the Indian Army for 10 years. A criminal case under the Excise Act was registered against them for consuming liquor while on duty. They were found guilty and convicted on 14.1.2006, though released on probation. The conviction has been upheld by the trial Court but there revision petition is pending in the High Court.

Based upon their conviction, the Competent Authority in CWP No. 19146 of 2011 -2- purported exercise of its powers under Proviso to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution dismissed them from service. Their departmental appeal and revision petition were also dismissed and so was the fate of their Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal.

In our considered view, the matter requires re-consideration, especially on the quantum of punishment by the Competent Authority/Revisional Authority as the case may be at least for the following two reasons:-

(i) It is well established that an order of dismissal from service under Clause (a) of Proviso to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution cannot be passed only on the basis of conviction, rather the conduct of the person which led to his conviction on a criminal charge will have to be kept in view.

(ii) Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, starts with a non-obstante clause and it says that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, a person found guilty of an offence and dealt with under the provisions of section 3 or section 4 shall not suffer disqualification if any, attaching to a conviction of offence under such law.

The length of service and previous service record can also be kept in view while determining the nature of punishment. CWP No. 19146 of 2011 -3-

Since the aforesaid aspects were apparently not considered while dismissing the petitioners from service especially Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, let the matter be placed before the Inspector General of Police, U.T. Chandigarh for an appropriate reconsideration within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

Disposed of.




                                                  ( SURYA KANT )
                                                      JUDGE


February 8, 2013                                  ( R.P. NAGRATH )
rishu                                                  JUDGE

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court