CWP No.13887 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.13887 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 03.02.2010 **** ASI Daljit Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and another . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate with Ms. Renu, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 18.08.2009 (Annexure P9), whereby, his appointment as Assistant Sub Inspector in the Punjab Police made on 27.04.2000 has been cancelled. (2). The aforesaid order has been passed on the ground that the petitioner had allegedly concealed material facts regarding three criminal cases CWP No.13887 of 2009.doc - 2 – registered against him at the time when he entered in the Government service. (3). The father of the petitioner late Shri Nazar Singh was serving as a Deputy Superintendent of Police in the Punjab Police when he unfortunately died in a road accident on 24.5.1995. The petitioner applied for his appointment on compassionate grounds in the year 1995 itself, as is evident from the recommendations made by the Director General of Police, Patiala Range, Patiala vide memo dated 09.06.1995 (Annexure P1). After almost five years, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Sub Inspector vide appointment letter dated 27.04.2000 (Annexure P2). (4). Though nothing wrong has been found with the petitioner’s post-recruitment conduct he was found involved in the following three criminal cases before thereto:- i. FIR No.13 dated 13.1.1999 under Sections 379/411/419/420/467/468/471 PS Jagraon. ii. FIR No.111 dated 25.6.1999 under Section 306 PS Jagraon. iii. FIR No.85 dated 23.10.1998 under Sections 420/469/471 PS Dakha CWP No.13887 of 2009.doc - 3 – (5). There appears to be no denial to the fact that FIR No.13 dated 13.1.1999 was cancelled and its cancellation report was duly accepted by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jagraon on 01.10.2001 (Annexure P3). Similarly, in case FIR No.111 dated 25.6.1999, the petitioner stood acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana vide judgement dated 10.10.2001 (Annexure P4). (6). In the third case, though the petitioner is facing trial but his contention is that the matter has been prolonged by his co-accused. (7). The petitioner assails cancellation of his appointment on two counts. Firstly, it is urged that there is no concealment of fact on his part as in the year 1995 when he applied for appointment under the ex gratia scheme none of the criminal case was pending or registered against him. These cases were registered later on. Secondly, much before the impugned action was taken, the petitioner had already earned acquittal and/or cancellation of two FIRs out of three cases. But this fact has not been considered by the competent authority. CWP No.13887 of 2009.doc - 4 – (8). From the reply/affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it does appear that the above-stated two material aspects which have direct bearing on the issue, have gone unnoticed at the time of the passing of the impugned order (Annexure P9). The matter, therefore, requires reconsideration by the competent authority. (9). The petitioner did raise these issues in his reply dated 20.07.2008 (Annexure P8) to the show cause notice but unfortunately the same have not been expressly dealt with while passing the impugned order dated 18.08.2009. (10). For the reason(s) afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed to the extent that the impugned order dated 18.08.2009 (Annexure P9) is quashed, however, the reinstatement of the petitioner is ordered to be kept in abeyance till the competent authority objectively reconsiders the whole matter and passes appropriate order, uninfluenced of the observations made in the impugned order dated 18.08.2009 (Annexure P9). The matter is, accordingly, relegated to the Director General of Police, Punjab who shall reconsider and pass an appropriate speaking order in accordance with law CWP No.13887 of 2009.doc - 5 – and after taking note of the two submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, noticed above. The needful shall be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. (11). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 03.02.2010 vishal shonkar