Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

GHEESA RAM versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Gheesa Ram v. State of Haryana & Ors - CWP-10502-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 4499 (20 July 2006)

C.W.P. No. 10502 of 2006 [1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

C.W.P. No. 10502 of 2006

Date of Decision: July 27, 2006

Gheesa Ram

.....Petitioner

Vs.

State of Haryana and others

.....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.

Present:- Mr. R.M. Singh, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana,

for the respondents.

-.-

M.M. KUMAR, J. (ORAL)

This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, prays for quashing order dated June 28, 2006 (P5) placing the petitioner under suspension w.e.f. June 26, 2006 on the allegation that he failed to report on his transfer from Police Line, Palwal to Protection Guard at Chhaprola, despite the fact that his departure is recorded in the Roznamcha, Police Line, (Rural), Palwal vide DDR No. 16 dated June 17, 2006. During the C.W.P. No. 10502 of 2006 [2]

period of suspension, he was to draw subsistence allowance equal to the amount which he could have drawn had he been on leave on half pay plus other allowances, temporarily under the Rules. The case of the petitioner is that the order of his transfer might have been made but the copy of Rapat No. 16 dated June 17, 2006 directing him to join at the transferred place did not show the place of his transfer (P2). On June 25, 2006, on inspection by the D.I.G. of the Rapat Roznamcha No.16 dated June 17, 2006, it was found that the petitioner was sent to Chhaprola Guard and had not joined till June 25, 2006 and is absenting himself from duty. Accordingly, he was treated absent and an enquiry was ordered by the impugned order.

When the matter came up for motion hearing on July 17, 2006, while issuing notice of motion, we have directed the learned State counsel to seek instructions as to whether any order disclosing the station of transfer was communicated to the petitioner and what was the precise reason for placing him under suspension. On July 24, 2006, we repeated the directions issued on July 17, 2006 and today, ASI Rajesh Kumar, Police Station Sadar, Palwal, along with Mr. M.R. Gill, Deputy District Attorney are present with the record. We have perused the original records which does not show any communication of the Rapat Roznamcha No.16 dated June 16, 2006 to the petitioner incorporating the place of his transfer namely Chhaprola, Protection Guard. The petitioner appears to have been give the Rapat Roznamcha which he has attached with the writ petition, wherein the name of the station to which he was transferred, is missing.

C.W.P. No. 10502 of 2006 [3]

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, we are of the view that a copy of the Rapat Roznamcha No. 16, dated June 16, 2006, was given to the petitioner. It omitted the name of the station i.e. Chhaprola Protection Guard, to which he was transferred. A copy of the aforementioned order has been placed on record by the petitioner. This could be the precise reason for his non-joining at the transferred place by 25.6.2006. The respondents cannot be permitted to victimise the petitioner for their own mistake. Therefore, we direct the respondents to withdraw the order of suspension as early as possible but not later than two weeks, which is absolutely unjustified. We have been apprised that the petitioner has now been posted at Narnaul and he had joined there, which is within Gurgaon Range and, therefore, we do not wish to say anything further with regard to the transfer of the petitioner.

However, we leave it open to the respondents to treat the period from June 17, 2006 till the date of joining of the petitioner at Narnaul, to be dealt with in accordance with the rules as applicable to the case of the petitioner. The needful shall be done within a period of two months from the date a copy of this order is produced before the respondents. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

(M.M.KUMAR)

JUDGE

July 27, 2006 (M.M.S.BEDI)

sanjay 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.