Allowed

Jawahar Lal v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Aug 2011CWP/12026/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a police constable reinstated after acquittal, filed a writ petition against an order by the Director General, Punjab, that set aside the reinstatement and restored his discharge. The Court allowed the petition, setting aside the cryptic order for lack of reasons and notice, granting liberty to pass a fresh order. No substantive law points were discussed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed, impugned order dated 29.07.2009 set aside, liberty granted to respondent to pass a fresh order.

Jawahar Lal Vs State of Punjab and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

::1::

¶2

C.W.P. No. 12026 of 2009

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

C.W.P. No. 12026 of 2009 Date of Decision : August 03, 2011.

Jawahar Lal

..... Petitioner

versus

State of Punjab and others

¶9

..... Respondents

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.

¶11

Present : Mr.Manjit Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Ms. Sudipti Sharma, DAG, Punjab.

¶13

¶14

1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶15

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶16

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶17

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶18

The petitioner was recruited as a Constable in Punjab Police on 16^th August, 1989. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur discharged him from service vide order dated 22^nd July, 1992 in purported exercise of his power under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules on the plea that the petitioner was found unfit for the job and he was unlikely to prove an efficient Police Officer.

¶19

Though, it was not mentioned in the discharge order but it appears that the services of the petitioner were terminated as he was found involved in a criminal case registered vide FIR No.116 dated 11.04.1992 under Sections 332, 353, 186, 506 and 34 IPC at Police Station Sadar

¶20

::2::

¶21

C.W.P. No. 12026 of 2009

¶22

Ferozepur.

¶23

The petitioner was acquitted in the said criminal case by the Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur vide order dated 22^nd January, 2000. After his acquittal attained finality, the petitioner submitted a mercy petition before the Inspector General of Police Bathinda, Zone Bathinda, which was partly accepted vide order dated 19^th April, 2006 (Annexure P-4), to the extent that the petitioner was reinstated in service and the break period was ordered to be treated as non-duty period.

¶24

The ill-advised petitioner thought it appropriate to represent to the next higher authority for regularization of the period during which he remained out of the service and submitted an appeal to the Director General of Police, Punjab with the prayer that the period spent by him out of service may be “ counted towards pension and increment etc.”

¶25

The Director General of Police, Punjab, vide the impugned order dated 29^th July, 2009, instead of deciding the appeal with reference to the prayer made therein, has set aside the order passed by the Inspector General of Police, Bathinda Zone dated 19^th April, 2006 whereby the petitioner was reinstated in service and has restored the order dated 22^nd July, 1992 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur, discharging the petitioner from service under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules.

¶26

No reason whatsoever has been assigned by the Director General of Police while passing the impugned order. Assuming that the said Authority has got suo motu powers, such a power can only be sparingly exercised for valid reasons to be assigned in writing. Similarly, the impugned order visits the petitioner with civil consequences and it could not have been passed without any show cause notice or opportunity of hearing to him.

¶27

C.W.P. No. 12026 of 2009 ::3::

¶28

The impugned order being totally cryptic, it is not discernible that the factors like as to whether the criminal case registered vide FIR No.116 dated 11.04.1992 was the sole foundation for discharging the petitioner from service and, if so, what would be the implication of his acquittal by the Court ? have not been discussed at all.

¶29

The justification sought to be given in the reply/affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents cannot be read into the impugned order dated 29^th July, 2009.

¶30

For the reasons aforestated, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 29^th July, 2009 is set aside, however, with liberty to the Director General of Police, Punjab to pass a fresh order, in accordance with law.

¶31

August 03, 2011 sukhpreet

¶32

(SURYA KANT) JUDGE

Jawahar Lal v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jawahar Lal v. State of Punjab and 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

Puran Chand & Anr. Vs Dir. Rural Development & Panchayat & Ors.

Mohinder Singh Vs State of Punjab etc.

Nand Kishore Vs State of Punjab and Others

Gurbachan Singh Vs State of Haryana

Central Bureau of Investigation Vs Manoj Gupta

M/S Hindustan Expo Vs State of Punjab and Ors.