IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.5566 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : JULY 28, 2010 CONSTABLE KAPIL TIWARI No.27/327 ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Saurabh Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. BS Chahal, DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This order shall dispose of six writ petitions viz. CWP No.5566 of 2010 (Constable Kapil Tiwari No.27/327 v. State of Punjab and others), CWP No.5567 of 2010 (Constable Inderjeet Singh No. 36/195 (PSEB) v. State of Punjab and others), CWP No.5568 of 2010 (Constable Nasib Singh No. 75/771 v. State of Punjab and others), CWP No.5569 of 2010 (Constable Paramjit Singh No. 27/612 (SEC WING) v. State of Punjab and others), CWP No.6017 of 2010 (Constable Balwant Singh No. 80/401 v. State of Punjab and others) and CWP No.6405 of 2010 (Constable Gurjit Singh No. 13/642 (PRTC/JKN) v. State of Punjab and others), as common questions of law and facts are involved. Civil Writ Petition No.5566 of 2010 2 For facts, reference is being made to the record of CWP No.5566 of 2010 (Constable Kapil Tiwari No.27/327 v. State of Punjab and others). This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 23.7.2009 (Annexure P-4). A perusal of order (Annexure P-4) shows that the Director General of Police, Punjab, vide order dated 24.2.2003 had issued directions that in case any major punishment has been inflicted, the case of the official is required to be considered in the light of provisions contained in Rule 13.8A(1) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (Volume 2 Chapter 13) (for short 'the Rules'). The order further mentions that it has been decided that cases of all officials who had been awarded major punishment before/after bringing their names on promotion lists C-II, D-II and E-II, be examined/reviewed through a Committee under the Chairmanship of Commandant, 7th Bn. PAP, Jalandhar Cantt., for removing their names from the lists. The Committee had considered the matter and recommended that in view of major punishment dated 3.3.2000, the case of the petitioner fell within the provisions of Rule 13.8 of the Rules. Before issuing the proposed order, a show cause notice was given and an opportunity of hearing was also given. Thereafter, the name of the petitioner was removed from promotion list C-II (Exemptee). Learned counsel for the respondent-State has pointed out that a Division Bench of this Court, while dealing with CWP No.18235 of Civil Writ Petition No.5566 of 2010 3 2005 (Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab and others) decided on 9.11.2006, has already considered the scope of Rule 13.8-A(1) of the Rules. The impugned order, such as the one passed in the context of the petitioner, has been upheld. I have considered the issue. In Sukhdev Singh's case (supra), the following has been held by this Court:- “A perusal of the aforesaid rule reveals, that infliction of a major punishment “shall be a bar .... to retention in lists A, B or C”. It is, therefore apparent, that the removal of the name of the petitioner from promotion list C-II, is necessarily consequential on the infliction of a major punishment on him. Since the major punishment inflicted on the petitioner, namely, forfeiture of one year's service is not subject matter of challenge, the removal of the petitioner's name from promotion list C-II, was clearly the natural effect of Rule 13.8A, extracted above. Despite our aforestated conclusion on the proposition of law canvassed on behalf of the respondents, it is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that it is too harsh for the respondents to have removed the name of the petitioner from promotion list C-II after the lapse of almost a decade. In this behalf, it is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the punishment, under reference, was inflicted on the petitioner on 7.9.1996, and if any action had to be taken against the petitioner, it ought to have been taken soon after the aforesaid punishment was inflicted on him, and not after a period of ten years, specially when the petitioner has earned good reports in the interregnum. It would have been open for us to examine the Civil Writ Petition No.5566 of 2010 4 contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, but for the mandate of Rule 13.8A of 1934 Rules, which does not leave any discretion with the authorities. A lenient view is permissible after six month's good conduct, but only in cases, where the punishment of censure or confinement to quarters or an expiry of the period of reduction in the case of reduction for a specified period, is imposed on a member of the service. Since the petitioner was not inflicted any of the punishments, envisaged by Rule 13.8A, wherein, a lenient view can be taken, it is not possible for us to accept the instant contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. For the reasons recorded above, we find no merit in this petition, and the same, accordingly, dismissed.” Learned counsel for the petitioner, having gone through the aforesaid judgment in the context of the impugned order passed in this case, has not been able to distinguish the same. No other judgment has been cited, which would indicate that the petitioner has any right calling for interference in writ jurisdiction. In view of the above, the petitions are dismissed. July 28, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?