Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

NARENDER SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Narender Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors - CWP-3569-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 1378 (3 March 2006)

CWP No.3569 of 2006 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

DATE OF DECISION: March 7, 2006.

Narender Singh

...Petitioners

versus

State of Haryana and others

... Respondents

CORAM:- Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mehtab S. Gill.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uma Nath Singh.

Present: Mr.U.K.Agnihotri, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

UMA NATH SINGH, J.

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashment of the impugned orders: (i) dated 25.9.2004 (Annexure P-15) passed by respondent No.4 and (ii) dated 25.10.2005 (Annexure P-17) passed by respondent No.3. The petitioner has also sought a direction to reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits.

It appears that the petitioner was recruited as a Constable in the Haryana Police on 4.4.1989. He served in District Police, Kaithal. He has alleged that he went on leave, therefore, a false and frivolous FIR No.191 dated 17.3.1991 was got registered against him under Sections 323, 506 and 511 IPC at Police Station City, Jind. He was suspended on 19.3.1991 and CWP No.3569 of 2006 2

discharged from service on 13.6.1991. He was acquitted of the charge in that case. Thereafter, he filed CWP No.127 of 1992 before this Court, which was allowed on 5.8.1998. He was ordered to be reinstated in service.

However, the respondents were granted liberty to take action, if any, after giving the petitioner opportunity of hearing. He was reinstated on 17.9.1998. He was also exonerated in departmental enquiry. He received all the service benefits with effect from 13.6.1991 upto 30.6.1998. He was granted the first ACP Scale on completion of 10 years satisfactory service on 4.4.1999. His main grievance is against the then Superintendent of Police, Kaithal. It is alleged that he was made a victim of frame up and pressurised to give evidence against the earlier Superintendent of Police.

He was illegally detained in the CIA, Kaithal, at the instance of respondent No.5. He filed Crl.Writ Petition No.879 of 2004 through one Ishwar Singh (Ishwar Singh versus State of Haryana), for issuance of writ of habeas corpus. Notice was issued and a Warrant Officer was appointed. Thereafter respondent No.5 is stated to have been pressurising the petitioner to withdraw this petition. He also made complaints to the higher authorities against the illegalities committed by respondent Nos.4 and 5, and one Inspector Amrik Singh of CIA Staff, Kaithal. The petitioner was given a show cause notice on 16.9.2004 for dismissal from service under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India read with Rule 16.2 of Punjab Police Rules. He filed his reply refuting the charges. An FIR (No.358) dated 19.9.2004 (Annexure P-12) was also got registered against him. He has challenged the registration of the said FIR in Crl.Misc.No.44359-M of 2005, praying for quashment. Thereafter, the petitioner was given a show cause notice of additional charge under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution CWP No.3569 of 2006 3

of India read with Rule 16.2 of Punjab Police Rules, on 21.9.2004.

Ultimately, the petitioner was dismissed from the service vide the impugned order dated 25.9.2004 (Annexure P-15).

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records.

It appears that the petitioner was aggrieved by his transfer pursuant to a general transfer order of different ranks issued by the S.P., Kaithal. The petitioner was only interested in his posting in Summons Staff, Kaithal, due to the reason that he has been habitual of pick pocketing in buses and trains. He proceeded on one month leave on the ground that his father was sick. He even got some pamphlets printed mentioning incorrect, baseless and defamatory words against senior police officers of District Police, Kaithal. The pamphlets were distributed to different officers by registered post and also widely circulated at different places in Haryana to defame the senior police officers and to disturb the peaceful functioning of Police Department. On 23.8.2004, the petitioner was deputed to the CIA, Kaithal. His presence was required in the course of a departmental enquiry being conducted by the Inspector, CIA, Kaithal. In an emergency case when the entire police force was engaged to search the accused in an abduction case, the petitioner was asked to remain on surveillance duty.

During that period, he got Crl.Writ Petition No.879 of 2004 filed through one Ishwar Singh, a co-villager, for issuance of writ of habeas corpus. A Warrant Officer of this Court reached the CIA Staff, Kaithal, but he was shown the relevant entries. The petitioner also destroyed the official record deliberately. Hence, he was served upon a summary of allegations in the departmental enquiry. He turned violent at a naka. Hence, a criminal case CWP No.3569 of 2006 4

was also registered against him vide FIR No. 358 dated 19.9.2004 under Sections 124-A, 153-A, 167, 177, 199, 200, 332, 353, 186, 500, 501, 420, 506 and 120-B IPC, Sections 3/22/1992 of Police Incitement of Disaffection Act and Sections 4/33/1966 of Police Force (Restriction of Rights) Act, at Police Station City, Kaithal. In this background, the petitioner was found to have grossly indulged in indiscipline and misconduct. He was also perceived as a potential threat to his senior police officers. Hence, in exercise of powers conferred under the provisions of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India, the petitioner was dismissed.

Under the circumstances, when the petitioner adopted coercive methods to earn a posting of his liking and in the process, defamed the department, and also posed serious threats to his senior officers, he has suffered the impugned dismissal order after proper enquiry.

We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders. Hence, this writ petition No.3569 of 2006 being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.

( UMA NATH SINGH )

JUDGE

March 7, 2006 ( MEHTAB S.GILL )

pk JUDGE


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.