Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ex.A.S.I.Krishan Kumar vs . State Of Haryana & Others on 15 July, 2009
Civil Writ Petition No.13863 of 2007 (O&M)
*****
Ex.A.S.I.Krishan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & others
Present: Mr.Girish Agnihotri, Senior Advocate with
Ms.Binneyjit Sheoran, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana,
for the State.
****
RANJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL)
The petitioner, who was working as Assistant Sub Inspector, stands dismissed from service on the allegation of acceptance of some bribe. The allegation against the petitioner is made by the then Assistant Advocate General Mr.Narender Sura. The petitioner at that time had come to assist the State counsel in connection with a Habeas Corpus petition pending before this court. On the basis of complaint so made, the petitioner was charge- sheeted. A regular enquiry was held against him and on the basis of evidence led, he was found guilty of the charges framed against him. Thereafter the petitioner was dismissed from service. The petitioner remained unsuccessful in his appeal and revision etc. and has now finally challenged the order of his dismissal through the present writ petition.
Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that while passing the dismissal order, the competent authority did not take into consideration the mandatory provisions and requirement as laid down in Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules (for short "the Rules"). Civil Writ Petition No.13863 of 2007 :2: In fact, notice of motion was issued restricting the same to this submission so advanced before the court. The submission is that the petitioner had 33 years service to his credit,which was not taken into account while passing the order of dismissal. Senior counsel would draw my attention to State of Punjab and others Vs. Piara Singh, 2004(2) RSJ 279 and Gurbachan Singh Bachi Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2004(2) RSJ 281. In a recent decision titled Dhan Singh Vs. State of Haryana & others, 2009(2) SLR 40, Division Bench of this Court has again considered the sweep of Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules. Even after coming to the conclusion that the misconduct of the police official concerned in the said case was enough to find him unfit for police service, the Court went on to observe that the authorities had not applied their mind and not taken into consideration the length of service of the petitioner and his right to pension while awarding punishment. It was further observed that right to pension is inherent under Rule 16.2 itself and, thus, it can not be ignored. It was accordingly observed that the authorities having failed to adhere to the rules while awarding punishment would render the impugned order of punishment illegal and unwarranted. In the present case also the petitioner has to his credit a service of nearly 33 years as noticed above. The view that would emerge from perusal of these judgment is that while passing the order of dismissal, the competent authority concerned has to take into consideration length of service of the delinquent employee as that is one of the essential requirement under Rule 16.2. If this is not done, it may amount to arbitrary exercise of power. The impugned order apparently does not Civil Writ Petition No.13863 of 2007 :3: contain any indication that this aspect of Rule 16.2 was kept in view by the competent authority while passing the said order. It would, therefore, be appropriate to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the requirement contained in Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules. If after considering that the petitioner has to his credit a satisfactory service of over 33 years and that order of dismissal would in that context operate harshly against him, the respondents would be at liberty to pass an appropriate order, granting pension or pensionary benefits to the petitioner. In other words, the respondents would be at liberty to pass a fresh order in accordance with law in the light of the provisions made in Rule 16.2 irrespective of the earlier order of dismissal of the petitioner from service.
The writ petition is disposed of with the above observations. July 15, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE