IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 5099 of 2010. [O&M] Date of Decision: 22nd March, 2010. Ajaib Singh Petitioner through Mr. A.K.Walia, Advocate Versus State of Punjab & Ors. 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] Notice of motion. Mr. B.S.Chahal, learned DAG, Punjab, accepts notice. In view of the nature of order which I propose to pass, there is no need to seek any counter-affidavit from the respondents. The petitioner is serving as a Head Constable in the Punjab Police. He was charge-sheeted for showing negligence in the matter of effecting service upon the witnesses in a corruption case, FIR No. 22 dated 13.1.1999 registered at Police Station, Kotwali, Bathinda. After the enquiry, punishment of forfeiture of one year's service has been imposed upon the petitioner. The petitioner's appeal and revision petition have also been dismissed. He thereafter submitted another revision/mercy petition before the Director General of Police, Punjab, who firstly entertained the same and heard the petitioner in person but thereafter rejected the same by passing a cryptic order that it is “time barred”. In my considered view, the DGP, Punjab ought not to have rejected the petitioner's petition in such a mechanical manner when all the preliminaries had been complied, especialy when it was only a mercy petition. The impugned order dated 20.7.2007 [Annexure P-5] is accordingly quashed and the Director General of Police, Punjab is directed to re-consider the mercy petition submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with the Rules/law and dispose of the same by passing a speaking order, within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of this order is received. Dasti. March 22, 2010. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE