C.W.P. No. 3076 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 3076 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: November 16, 2009 Bant Singh and Others .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and Others ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. S.K. Laddi, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) This petition has been filed under Sections 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 19.02.2008 Annexure P-12 passed by respondent no. 3 i.e. Additional Director General of Police, Intelligence, Punjab, Chandigarh. It has been pleaded in the petition that the petitioners were appointed as Constables in Punjab Armed Police. Petitioners were transferred to Criminal Investigation Department (for short 'CID'), Sangrur on deputation and joined as such on various duties. Vide impugned order Annexure P-12, the petitioners have been repatriated to the parent department on administrative grounds under Rule 21.25 (2) of Punjab Police Rules Vol.3 Chapter 21 which provides as follows:- C.W.P. No. 3076 of 2008 2 “A police officer on deputation to the Criminal Investigation Department will retain his original position in the cadre of his district or range. While in the Criminal Investigation Department he will be eligible for officiating promotion in that Branch; on reversion from Criminal Investigation Department he will assume his place in his original cadre. Officiating promotion may be given in the district or range in the place of an officer deputed to the Criminal Investigation Department, such officiating post lapsing on the officer's reversion.” Sub Rule 1 of Rule 21.25 of Punjab Police Rules Vol.3 Chapter 21 provides:- “Upper and lower subordinate posts other than those of Inspectors in the Criminal Investigation Department shall be filled by the deputation of suitable men from districts for periods of three years extendable by not more than two years at a time at the discretion of Deputy Inspector General, Crime Investigation Department.” It transpires that under Rule 21.25 (1) of the Punjab Police Rules, it is the discretion of the respondents to take a person on deputation in Criminal Investigation Department. The provision makes it explicit that the posts shall be filled by deputation of suitable men from districts. Learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that the petitioners have been repatriated to their parent department on being found in indulging in corrupt practices of demanding Rs. 10,000/- from one Deepak Kumar Kerosene Oil Depot Holder at Sangrur, on the pretext that he C.W.P. No. 3076 of 2008 3 used to sell kerosene oil in black market. The petitioners threatened him and collected a sum of Rs. 4,000/- from him warning him to keep Rs. 6,000/- more, ready. The matter was got inquired. It was concluded in the inquiry report submitted by DSP/CID that the petitioners had in fact taken Rs. 4,000/- from Deepak Kumar. The document has been placed on record as Annexure R-1. FIR case had been recommended to be registered, however, taking a lenient view by the senior officers, the petitioners have been simply repatriated to their parent department. After repatriation, the petitioners appeared before Director General of Police, Punjab who marked the request to Additional Director General of Police, Intelligence, Punjab to conduct an inquiry. In inquiry, allegations of corruption levelled against the petitioners stood substantiated as would be evident from Annexure R-3, therefore, no relief was given to the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that Annexure R-3 indicates contradictory facts and, therefore, the charges cannot be said to have been proved. I have considered the contention. It has been concluded by Assistant Inspector General of Police that the charges levelled by the complainant against the petitioners have been proved during the inquiry. Be that as it may, the scope of interference in judicial review is to be seen not only in the facts and circumstances of the case but also considering the discretion of the respondents in exercising jurisdiction. The extracted portion from Punjab Police Rules indicates that the respondents are required to take 'suitable persons' on deputation. It is not in dispute that certain charges were levelled against the petitioners in regard to accepting C.W.P. No. 3076 of 2008 4 illegal gratification while serving in CID Branch. Exercising discretion in accordance with authority vested in the respondents, the petitioners have been repatriated. The matter of transfer is a discretion of the respondents and is not to be interfered, with unless mala fide intention is shown. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show that the impugned order has been passed by an authority not having jurisdiction. Facts and circumstances of the case do not make out a ground for judicial review of the orders passed on executive side. Petition dismissed. 16.11.2009 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?