Disposed

World Human Rights Protection Council v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Jan 2009CWP/17080/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a public interest petition regarding a police inspector being beaten a boy for theft. After an inquiry officer found the inspector guilty and proposed punishment, and the Human Rights Commission took cognizance, the Court dispensed with the trial.

What did the court decide?

Directing the competent authority to take the departmental proceedings against the inspector to a logical conclusion within two months.

World Human Rights Protection Council Vs… — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CWP No. 17080 of 2008 Date of Decision: 6.1.2009

¶3

World Human Rights Protection Council

¶4

....Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Punjab and others

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

¶9

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶10

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶11

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶12

Present: Shri Ranjan Lakhanpal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶13

Shri H.S. Sidhu, Additional AG, Punjab, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

¶14

Shri D.S. Virk, Advocate, for respondent No. 4.

¶15

T.S. Thakur, C.J. (Oral).

¶16

This petition filed in public interest makes a grievance against a beating given to a young boy named Surinder Shinda by Lakhwinder Singh, SHO, Police Station, Sultanpur Lodhi, in an incident recorded by a journalist, present at the spot. When the matter first came up before this Court on 25.9.2008, we had directed the Director General of Police, Punjab, to hold a preliminary inquiry into the incident recorded in the CD and submit a report to this Court. The Director General of Police, has pursuant to the said direction, filed an affidavit in which it is, inter-alia, stated that an inquiry was instituted into the incident recorded in the CD and entrusted to Shri Kanwaljit Singh Pannu, IPS/DIG, Internal Vigilance Cell, who has

¶17

CWP No. 17080 of 2008

¶18

(2)

¶19

completed the same and submitted a report on 27.10.2008. As per the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer, Shri Surinder Shinda was caught red handed stealing mortal remains of deceased Gurvinder Singh of village Mewa Singh Wala, District Kapurthala. With a view to recovering the said stolen remains, the SHO, Police Station, Sultanpur Lodhi had beaten up Surinder Shinda in front of the public. The affidavit goes on to state that the SSP, Kapurthala had initiated departmental action against Lakhwinder Singh and transferred him to police lines Kapurthala. A regular departmental inquiry was also started and entrusted to Sukhwinder Singh, SP/D, Kapurthala. The Inquiry Officer has found Lakhwinder Singh guilty and proposed imposition of punishment. Agreeing with the said finding, the SSP, Kapurthala has issued a notice to Inspector Lakhwinder Singh to show cause as to why punishment of forfeiture of two years' approved service should not be imposed upon him. The affidavit also states that a complaint has been filed by one Arvind Thakur, Advocate, Chairman, Global Human Rights Council, before the Punjab Human Rights Commission against Inspector Lakhwinder Singh, which has now been marked to Shri Gurdev Singh, SP, Punjab State Human Rights Commission.

¶20

Shri Sidhu, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that since the incident in question has been taken note of by the competent authority and since a departmental inquiry has already been conducted against the delinquent official, who has already been called upon to show cause as to who the punishment mentioned earlier, be not imposed upon him, this petition could be disposed of with appropriate directions. He submits that the issue is being enquired into even by the Punjab Human Rights Commission, making it unnecessary for this Court to proceed further

¶21

(3)

¶22

CWP No. 17080 of 2008

¶23

with the matter.

¶24

In the circumstances, therefore, and keeping in view the developments referred to above, especially the fact that the official concerned has been proceeded against for the incident recorded in the CD placed before this Court and punishment is also proposed to be imposed upon him, we see no reason to keep the present proceedings pending before this Court. All that we need say is that the departmental proceedings initiated against the delinquent Inspector Lakhwinder Singh shall be taken to their logical conclusion by the competent authority expeditiously, but not later than two months from the date of this order. We make it clear that the disposal of the writ petition, shall not prevent the Human Rights Commission from making any recommendation or issuing any direction considered just and appropriate, in accordance with law. No costs.

¶25

(T.S. THAKUR) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶26

(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE

¶27

6.1.2009 ds

World Human Rights Protection Council v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

World Human Rights Protection Council v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Beg Raj Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Pala Ram Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Ram Phal Kundu Vs State of Haryana and Ors.