IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.7413 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : DECEMBER 01, 2010 JARNAIL SINGH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. RBS Chahal, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. BS Chahal, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Chanchal Singla, Advocate, for respondents 7 to 13. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1. 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 orders dated 13.2.2009 and 23.4.2009, Annexures P-6 and P-7, respectively. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is the Investigating Officer of case FIR No.370 dated Civil Writ Petition No.7413 of 2009 2 28.12.2005 under Sections 457, 380, 354, 366, 148, 149, 376, 511, Indian Penal Code, and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, Police Station, Civil Lines, Patiala. During investigation of the case, Scorpio car bearing registration No.PB-11/W-6363, registered in the name of Smt.Ranjeeta Syngle, formed part of case property and the same was recovered from accused-Bhupinder Singh (respondent No.7). The stolen vehicle, as identified by the complainant accompanied by her husband, was taken into custody by the petitioner along with Head Constable Gurdev Singh. The vehicle was subsequently released on supradari by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala, on 12.4.2008, after verification of its ownership. 3. It seems that vide order dated 5.8.2008 and letter dated 22.8.2008, respondent No.3 i.e. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Patiala Range, Patiala, asked Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala, to inquire into the role of the petitioner and taking into custody the vehicle belonging to the complainant. It has been projected that respondent No.4 appointed Deputy Superintendent of Police, City-2 Patiala, to inquire into the matter, who submitted report (Annexure P-1) and exonerated the petitioner. 4. The gist of the prayer in the petition for invoking extra ordinary writ jurisdiction is that the action of the respondents is required to be judicially reviewed insomuch as an inquiry having been concluded, resulting in exoneration of the petitioner, vide the impugned orders, second inquiry could not have been ordered. 5. Considering the nature of documents, which have been placed Civil Writ Petition No.7413 of 2009 3 on record, a question arose as to whether the initial inquiry was in the course of investigation on the criminal side or on the service/departmental side. In this view of the matter, vide order dated 10.11.2010, the respondents were asked to clarify whether impugned orders (Annexures P- 6 and P-7) have been passed under the service rules on the administrative side or in connection with investigation/inquiry of the case on the criminal side. 6. Affidavit has been filed by Shri Gurpreet Singh Gill, PPS, Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala, sworn on 26.11.2010. In para-3 of the affidavit, the following has been stated:- “3. That in compliance of order dated 5.8.2008 of D.I.G. Patiala Range, Patiala, the S.S.P. Patiala directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, City-2, Patiala to conduct investigation in this regard, on which, investigation was conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, City-2, Patiala and report was submitted by the DSP vide report dated 14.10.2008 (Annexure P-1), in which the petitioner-Jarnail Singh was found to be innocent and the petitioner was exonerated. The said report of DSP City-2 was forwarded by the S.S.P. Patiala to D.I.G. Patiala Range, Patiala on dated 17.10.2008 and the copy of the same was also sent to Additional Director General of Police (Crime), Punjab, Chandigarh. At this, the A.D.G.P. (Crime) called comments from the D.I.G. Patiala Range, Patiala in this regard. The D.I.G. Patiala Range, Patiala on 8.1.2009 further called comments on the said report from the S.S.P. Fatehgarh Sahib that whether the petitioner is guilty or not. Thereafter, the S.S.P. Fatehgarh Sahib on the report of DSP, City-2, Patiala, on which the S.P. (D) submitted that the investigation conducted by him is correct and detailed one and the Civil Writ Petition No.7413 of 2009 4 petitioner is at fault. On which, the S.S.P. Fatehgarh Sahib sent his comments to the D.I.G. Patiala Range, Patiala on dated 21.1.2009 and written that the investigation conducted by the S.P. (D), Fatehgarh Sahib is correct and detailed one and the S.S.P. Fatehgarh Sahib concurred with the report of S.P. (D).” 7. In para-4 of the affidavit (relevant portion), the following has been clarified:- “4. ......... In compliance of the order dated 14.2.2009, the then S.S.P. Patiala ordered to hold a departmental enquiry against the petitioner vide order dated 23.4.2009 (Annexure P-7). The said departmental enquiry was conducted by DSP, Patran. But as per the order dated 20.5.2009 of this Hon'ble Court, the final orders were not passed by the S.S.P. Patiala. It was the only departmental enquiry against the petitioner and no other departmental enquiry pertaining to the allegations was ordered/conducted against the petitioner. Therefore, the orders Annexure P-6 and P-7 have been passed on administrative side.” 8. Learned counsel for the respondent-State, on instructions from Head Constable Amrik Singh, Assistant Civil Suit Clerk, Patiala, states that the report (Annexure P-1) was in regard to the investigation, as has been clarified in para-3 of the affidavit extracted above, and has no bearing on proceedings on the administrative/service side. It has further been clarified that orders (Annexures P-6 and P-7) have been passed in departmental proceedings and are independent of the proceedings on the criminal/investigation side. 9. Since the prayer in the petition is in the context of a second inquiry in regard to the same incident, I am of the considered view that the Civil Writ Petition No.7413 of 2009 5 earlier inquiry/investigation having been conducted in the context of the investigation in the FIR case, the respondents are at liberty to hold departmental inquiry in the context of service rules governing the service of the petitioner on administrative side. 10. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 11. The petitioner, however, would be at liberty to raise all the defenses available to the petitioner before the Inquiry Officer. December 01, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?