C.W.P. No. 8416 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 8416 of 2011 Date of Decision 12.05.2011 Ex-Constable Harbans Singh -----Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ---Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. R.K. Chopra, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Maninder, Advocate for the petitioner. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been preferred by Ex-Constable Harbans Singh against order dated 24.01.2011 (P-8) rendered by the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for brevity 'the Tribunal') holding that the petitioner was rightly dismissed from service in pursuance of his conviction in case FIR No. 109 dated 26.07.1994 for the offence under Sections 379 and 411 of IPC, registered at Police Station Sector 11, Chandigarh. The criminal case was decided by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh vide order dated 04.09.2001(P-2) and the case against the C.W.P. No. 8416 of 2011 -2- petitioner under Section 379 of IPC was proved. He was convicted but after hearing him on the quantum of sentence, he was ordered to be released on probation on his furnishing a probation bond in the sum of ` 10,000/- with one surety with like amount. The petitioner continued in service despite his conviction in 2001 on account of suppression of intimation to the appointing authority. However, vide order dated 02.04.2008 (P-3), he was dismissed from service by taking into account his conduct in the criminal case which has led to his conviction. The respondent- Administration concluded that his conduct which has led to his conviction is of such a nature that his retention in the police department is undesirable and not in public interest. Accordingly, by virtue of power vested in the Senior Superintendent of Police, U.T. Chandigarh under Clause (a) of the 2nd proviso to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution, the petitioner was dismissed from service. The aforesaid order was challenged by the petitioner in an appeal before the Inspector General of Police, who upheld the same vide order dated 26.08.2008 (P-4). Even a revision petition filed by him did not evoke any different result and the same was also dismissed vide order 14.09.2009 by the Home Secretary, U.T. Chandigarh. 2. It is also pertinent to mention that the petitioner was awarded punishment of forfeiture of one increment with permanent effect vide order dated 30.12.2002 on account of C.W.P. No. 8416 of 2011 -3- negligence of duty and disobeying the instructions of his senior. Earlier to that, a penalty of censure was inflicted upon him on 22.09.1999 and his two increments were stopped on 18.12.1999 with permanent effect on account of absence from duty. 3. As per record, information concerning his conviction was communicated to the SSP-Appointing Authority for the first time on 18.03.2008 by the SHO, Police Station Sector 11, Chandigarh, which led to the passing of order of dismissal on 02.04.2008. It was thereafter, that even disciplinary proceedings were initiated against Sh. Baljinder Pal Singh, Naib Court in the Court of learned JMIC and Sh. Sarwan Ram HC, for not sending the information concerning conviction of the petitioner. Therefore, the delay in passing the order in respect of the conviction on 04.09.2001 (P-2) stands sufficiently explained. Moreover, we find that the Senior Superintendent of Police- Appointing Authority had taken into account the conduct of the petitioner which has led to his conviction and then concluded that such a person is not worthy of retention in service and accordingly, ordered his dismissal. 4. The Tribunal rejected the plea of the petitioner that once he has been released under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (for brevity 'the 1958 Act') then he should not have been dismissed in service. Placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Union of India and C.W.P. No. 8416 of 2011 -4- others v. Bakshi Ram AIR 1990 SC 987, the Tribunal held that mere release on probation under the 1958 Act after conviction by a Criminal Court would be no bar for passing an order of dismissal. The Tribunal placed reliance on the observation made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court holding that Section 12 of the 1958 Act only postulates that Section 12 of 1958 Act does not preclude the department from taking action for misconduct leading to the conviction. 5. Having heard learned Senior counsel, we are of the considered view that the petitioner does not deserve any sympathetic consideration. A constable cannot be let loose on the general public who is taking benefit of his uniform and indulges in offences like theft of articles. He has been convicted under Section 379 IPC vide judgment dated 04.09.2001 (P-2) and he successfully avoided any departmental action in connivance with other authorities. The respondent-Administration has taken strict action against the aforesaid person. The image of the police has remain stigmatic and an effort on the part of the respondent- Administration to clean the police department by getting rid of such person must be encouraged. The order passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police takes into consideration the conduct of the petitioner which has led to passing of order of conviction and also the relevant consideration that such a conduct would interfere in the performance of his duty. When an enforcer of law becomes C.W.P. No. 8416 of 2011 -5- himself a violator then no consideration other than strict action should follow. The action of the respondent-Administration is in accordance with law and deserves to be upheld. We further hold that the decision taken by the Tribunal does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting admission of the writ petition. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE May 12, 2011 Atul