CWP No.17408 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.17408 of 2008 Date of decision: 01.10.2008 Pushpa Rani ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. G.S. Jaswal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J. The petitioner Pushpa Rani has preferred this writ petition praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 9th January, 2006 (Annexure P-10), passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana vide which she was dismissed from service. She has also prayed for quashing of subsequent orders passed by higher authorities in appeal, revision etc. which upheld the order passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana. The petitioner has averred in the writ petition that she was married to one Hari Ram. However, her marriage with Hari Ram was dissolved on 4.12.1987 by customary divorce-deed. Hari Ram thereafter died of some serious disease on 14th June, 1990. The petitioner who at that time was serving as a Volunteer in Punjab Home Guards on daily wages, claims that she got married to one Kuldip Singh, an SPO in CWP No.17408 of 2008 2 Punjab Police. However, Kuldip Singh was killed by terrorists on 19.3.1992. After the death of Kuldip Singh, petitioner laid claim for all the benefits in lieu of death of Kuldip Singh in a terrorists encounter. The petitioner also claimed an ex-gratia grant of Rs.2.00 lacs announced by the State to be paid to the family members of the deceased. However, family of Kuldip Singh denied that Kuldip Singh was married to the petitioner and made a complaint in this regard. As a result, an inquiry was instituted against the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer examined number of witnesses and came to the conclusion that the petitioner had posed as widow of deceased SPO Kuldip Singh and furnished false information to the department. As a result of this she even succeeded in securing recruitment as a constable in the department. The Inquiry Officer found that the petitioner was never married to Kuldip Singh and was, thus, guilty of claiming benefits on account of his death by posing as his widow. Pursuant to the inquiry report, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and she was ultimately dismissed from service vide order dated 9th January, 2006 (Annexure P-10), passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana. The petitioner thereafter preferred a statutory appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ludhiana. The same was also dismissed by a detailed order passed on 5.10.2006, Annexure P-12. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Inspector General of Police, Jalandhar Zone, Jalandhar. The said revision petition was again CWP No.17408 of 2008 3 dismissed by a detailed order dated 3rd January, 2007 by the Inspector General of Police, Jalandhar Zone. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a Memorial Petition before the Director General of Police, which was also dismissed on 30th August, 2007. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. He has argued that there is ample evidence on record to show that the petitioner was married to Kuldip Singh and had thus she rightly claimed the benefits after he was killed by the extremists on 19.3.1992. The counsel has contended that the petitioner and Kuldip Singh both lived together as husband and wife for a period of about two years after her marriage with Hari Ram was dissolved by a customary divorce deed. Thus, she was entitled to the benefits which had accrued as a result of death of Kuldip Singh at the hands of extremists. However, we have carefully perused the record as annexed to the petition. It appears that the petitioner instituted a civil suit for permanent injunction against Amarjit Kaur, mother of Kuldip Singh to claim that she was entitled to the ex-gratia grant in lieu of death of Kuldip Singh. During the pendency of the said civil suit, she managed to get enlisted as a lady constable in Punjab Police as she claimed to be widow of Kuldip Singh. However, the civil suit was dismissed by the trial court on 11.10.2001. She preferred an appeal against the dismissal of the civil suit. However, the same was also dismissed on 3.12.2002 by Additional District Judge, Ludhiana. It appears that the police department conducted a detailed inquiry and came to the conclusion that CWP No.17408 of 2008 4 the petitioner had falsely represented herself as widow of SPO Kuldip Singh and got herself enlisted as a lady constable. She was found guilty in the departmental inquiry and was dismissed from service by Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana on 9th January, 2006. Her appeals, revisions etc. were also rejected. An FIR was also registered against the petitioner for the allegations levelled against her. This FIR was registered vide FIR No.148 dated 6.6.2004, under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC at Police Station Division No.5, Ludhiana. Even the Deputy Commissioner, Jalandhar while issuing the succession certificate in respect of death of Kuldip Singh, held that Amarjit Kaur, mother of SPO Kuldip Singh was his legal heir and Kuldip Singh was a bachelor at the time of his death. Resultantly, we find that the petitioner has no case, whatsoever, for quashing of the impugned order. The finding of fact has been arrived at by the Inquiry Officer which has been subsequently approved by the disciplinary authority. Her appeal, revision and memorial petition were also dismissed. The counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any legal defect with the impugned orders. Even a perusal of the record clearly shows that the findings of fact arrived at by various authorities who dealt with the case of the petitioner, call for no interference. We are, thus, of the considered view that the petitioner has been rightly dismissed from service as she misrepresented herself as widow of SPO Kuldip Singh and managed to get enlisted as a lady CWP No.17408 of 2008 5 constable in the police department. For this serious misconduct, the respondents correctly came to the conclusion that she deserved to be dismissed from service. Moreover, the petitioner was given ample opportunity of hearing before the Inquiry Officer as well as in the subsequent proceedings. She was, however, not able to show how the allegations levelled against her were incorrect. We, thus, find no merit in the writ petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE October 01, 2008 'rajpal'