CWP No.1812 of 2011(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.1812 of 2011(O&M) Decided on : 31-01-2011 Hawa Singh ....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. N.D.Achint, Advocate for the petitioner. MAHESH GROVER, J The petitioner prays that the orders vide which he has been inflicted the punishment of dismissal from service be set aside. He thus asks for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the orders dated 30.8.2008, 4.12.2008 and 8.10.2009. The petitioner was working as a Constable and was chargsheeted on 15.7.2008 which was inquired into by the Inquiry Officer who submitted his report on 16.8.2008. The precise charge against the petitioner was that he alongwith ASI Rajinder Parshad had demanded a sum of Rs.10,000/- as bribe from one Bhanwati Devi w/o Gajraj Singh for acting upon her complaint. Raiding party recovered a sum of Rs.1,000/- from the pocket of the petitioner as this was the only amount paid as a part consideration of the total amount of Rs.10,000/-. Petitioner then faced prosecution pursuant to FIR No. 103 dated 9.5.2007 under Sections 7/13/49/88 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Alongwith the same the petitioner also faced regular CWP No.1812 of 2011(O&M) 2 departmental inquiry which held that the charges against petitioner were proved. After considering the reply submitted by the petitioner pursuant to the show cause notice issued by the competent authority, order of dismissal was passed on 30.8.2008. The subsequent appeal and revision were also rejected by orders dated 4.12.2008 and 8.10.2009, which is now the cause of grievance to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned orders are unreasonable and the entire service record has not been taken into consideration before awarding the punishment of dismissal. He further contended that this is not gross mis-conduct as is to be understood by the provisions of Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules. He further contended that a perusal of the material before the Inquiry Officer did not conclusively point to its complicity in the said incident and further that it was ASI Rajinder Prashad who had thrust the currency notes in his pocket in order to implicate him. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material on record. The petitioner has been proceeded against departmentally for a charge which reflected on his integrity. The charge stands proved. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not advance any submissions regarding the irregularity of any process followed by the respondents leading to the conclusion of his involvement in the incident of demanding bribe and receiving it. In the absence of any such procedural irregularity which could negate the effect of the conclusion arrived at by the respondents and which error can also substantially enhance the plea of violation of principles of natural justice, I am of the considered opinion that CWP No.1812 of 2011(O&M) 3 the impugned orders do not warrant any interference, moreso, when Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules clearly envisage the taking of extreme action of dismissal against a member of the force in the event of his being found guilty of gross mis-conduct. Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules is extracted herebelow:- “16.2 Dismissal (1) Dismissal shall be awarded only for the gravest acts of misconduct or as the cumulative effect of continued misconduct proving incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police service. In making such an award regard shall be had to the length of service of the offender and his claim to pension.” When the facts of the case are tested on the principles as laid down in the rule then it is clear that a person whose integrity is faulted with, such a person cannot plead that this does not amount to gross mis-conduct as any other interpretation to the term mis-conduct would be doing extreme violence to the concept and principle of mis-conduct as envisaged in the Rules. A member of the force is not only expected to be disciplined in actions but is also expected to be disciplined in mind and character and any impingement on the character has to be termed to be gross mis-conduct so as to invite an action under the provisions of Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules. There is thus no ground to interfere with the impugned orders which have been justifiably passed. Hence, dismissed. January 31 , 2011 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge