Civil Writ Petition No. 816 of 2009 1 ***** Sat Pal @ Satya Pal Versus Director General of Police, Haryana and others Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana for the State. ***** The petitioner was appointed as Constable in Haryana Police in the year 2006. He was detailed to go to Madhuban for depositing 7790 empty cartridges of .303 bore by ASI Bhim Singh. On 26.12.2006, he deposited 7090 empty cartridges. As per the petitioner, some objections were raised in regard to 700 cartridges on the ground that they were of different category. The petitioner further claims that he spoke to his higher officials on telephone and they directed him to leave 700 cartridges at Madhuban. The petitioner was further apprised that they would speak to the officials at Madhuban and sort the matter out. On 27.12.2006, inspection was carried out at Faridabad when it was found that the petitioner had deposited 7090 cartridges instead of 7790. He was accordingly proceeded against for not depositing 700 empty cartridges at Madhuban. Offence under Section 409 IPC was registered at Police Line, Faridabad. As per the petitioner, 700 cartridges were found lying in the DGP Kot at Madhuban but still he was charged with misconduct in this regard. Besides, the proceedings against the petitioner were also initiated under Rule 16.24 of the Punjab Police Rules. Show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, but without conducting the inquiry the petitioner was ordered to be dismissed on 4.1.2007 by invoking the Civil Writ Petition No. 816 of 2009 2 powers under Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court through the present writ petition impugning the action of the respondent in dispensing with the inquiry and the order of his dismissal from service. As per the petitioner, there was no justification to dispense with the inquiry as it was reasonably practicable to hold the same. Two similarly situated persons were also proceeded against. One is ASI Ram Niwas, who was also dismissed from service by invoking powers under Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India and was dismissed from service. He filed CWP No. 5445 of 2007 before this Court. This Court has viewed that the competent authority was not justified in dispensing with the departmental inquiry and has accordingly set aside the impugned order of dismissal in the case of ASI Ram Niwas. On a similar consideration, order of dismissal in case of SI Prem Singh and ASI Jai Kisan has also been passed. The petitioner accordingly contends that his case is identical to these employees as referred to above. I have considered the averments made in the petition. Apparently, the case of the petitioner is identical to that of Ram Niwas versus State of Haryana and another decided on 11.3.2008 . Copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure P-3. The writ petition was allowed and the order of dismissal was set aside. The order placing Ram Niwas under suspension was directed to continue. Liberty was also left with the respondents to proceed further in the departmental inquiry against the said petitioner as per law. Adopting the same course, this writ petition is allowed in the Civil Writ Petition No. 816 of 2009 3 same terms. The impugned order of dismissal, Annexure P-5, is quashed. The petitioner if had been placed under suspension then the same shall continue. Respondents will have liberty to proceed against the petitioner by way of departmental inquiry as per law. The petitioner would co-operate with the inquiry. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in the above terms. September 14, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE