CWP No.4177 of 2010.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.4177 of 2010 Date of Decision: 10.03.2010 **** Iqbal Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . 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? **** Present: Mr. S.K. Chawla, Advocate for the petitioner ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner was enrolled as a Special Police Officer in the Police Department w.e.f. 27.08.1992. His claim was later on approved and he was absorbed as a Constable. (2). Meanwhile, the petitioner was found involved in a criminal case bearing FIR No.22 dated 02.01.2000 under Sections 323/324/148/149 IPC Police Station Jaitu, District Faridkot in which he was acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot vide his judgement dated 09.07.2004 (Annexure P1). The revision petition against the aforesaid order was dismissed by this Court vide CWP No.4177 of 2010.doc - 2 – order dated 11.10.2007 (Annexure P2). The petitioner has now been served with a Show Cause Notice dated 28.12.2009 (Annexure P6) as to why the order of his absorption as Constable be not recalled and/or he be not dismissed from service in the light of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Delhi Administration vs. Sushil Kumar, (1996) 11 SCC 605. The petitioner has already submitted his reply to the Show Cause Notice on 05.01.2010 (Annexure P7) but he apprehends that the termination/dismissal order is likely to be passed in a mechanical manner. (3). Prima facie, the Show Cause Notice served upon the petitioner is palpably illegal. However, instead of expressing any final view in relation thereto at this stage, especially when the reply to the Show Cause Notice is pending consideration, I deem it appropriate to refer the matter to the Officers’ Committee constituted by this Court vide order dated 04.03.2010 passed in CWP No.566 of 2010 titled as Ranjit Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and others. The Committee is directed to examine the scope of Executive Instructions dated 11.05.2009 (Annexure P5) and CWP No.4177 of 2010.doc - 3 – lay down the parameters as to in what circumstances the orders of absorption/appointment can be reviewed and/or revoked. Suffice it to observe that the facts pertaining to involvement in a criminal case, the nature of the alleged offence i.e. whether it involved moral turpitude or not and the ultimate findings returned by the Court of competent jurisdiction and the manner of occurrence/the post recruitment conduct etc. are several factors to be kept in view before mechanically applying any decision and that too with retrospective effect. Would it also not be appropriate in such like cases for this Court to direct to take disciplinary action against the Commandant/Senior Superintendent of Police and all other Police Officers who forwarded/recommended and/or took decision for such absorption/appointment in the Police Force? (4). Let the Committee take an appropriate decision subject to the scrutiny of this Court. It is, however, directed that in case any adverse decision is taken against the petitioner, the same shall not be given effect for a period of two months from the date of its service upon the petitioner. (5). Ordered accordingly. CWP No.4177 of 2010.doc - 4 – (6). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 10.03.2010 vishal shonkar