C.W.P. No.14033 of 1992 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.14033 of 1992 Date of Decision: 14.7.2010 Bhupinder Singh ……Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and others ……Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH -.- Present: Mr. H.S. Mann, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Satish Bhanot, Addl. A.G., Punjab. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) 1. By way of present petition petitioner is invoking the juris- diction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as- sailing the order of discharge from the police service dated 26.2.1983 (Annexure P-1) and order dated 18.4.1984 (Annexure P-2) rejecting the representation of the petitioner. C.W.P. No.14033 of 1992 -2- 2. Brief facts of the present case are that petitioner had joined the service of the Punjab Police as Constable on 27.2.1980. After completion of training petitioner was posted as Constable and before he could complete three years continuous service as Consta- ble, he was directed to be discharged from service w.e.f. 1.2.1983 (A.N.) vide order dated 26.2.1983 (Annexure P-1) under Punjab Po- lice Rules 12.21; ASI Harbans Singh was having strained relations with the father of the petitioner who was also an Assistant Sub In- spector in the Punjab Police; two Constables namely Ganga Singh and Surat Singh were engaged in a clash with the students of I.T.I., Bathinda and the petitioner alongwith his colleague Harjit Singh inter- vened and helped the Constables Ganga Singh and Surat Singh and got them released from the students; instead of appreciating the gesture of the petitioner and Constable Harjit Singh saving Ganga Singh and Surat Singh, Constables, ASI Harbans Singh made a wrong and incorrect report against the petitioner alleging therein that petitioner was in favour of the I.T.I. students; order impugned was passed in hasty manner; no disciplinary inquiry was held and no op- portunity of being heard was afforded to the petitioner. 3. Reply to the petition was filed refuting the contention made therein. It was contended in the reply that impugned order was passed on 26.2.1983 while present writ petition was filed in 1992 i.e. after 9 years. An inordinate delay of 9 years has not been explained. C.W.P. No.14033 of 1992 -3- It is further contended in the written statement that conduct of the pe- titioner was found unlikely to prove an efficient police officer. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner on being asked, as to why petitioner kept waiting for 9 years after passing of impugned or- der dated 26.2.1983, he vehemently argued that first of all represen- tation was moved before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ferozepur which was dismissed vide order dated 18.4.1984 and thereafter mercy petition was moved before the Director General of Police (Annexure P-3) on 28.5.1984 which had never been decided and petitioner kept waiting for the decision of Annexure P-3 and when no result was received, present writ petition was filed. Accord- ing to learned Counsel for the petitioner, in view of the pendency of Annexure P-3 (mercy petition) dated 28.5.1984 present petition is not barred by principles of latches and inordinate delay. Learned Coun- sel for the petitioner further agued that Rule 12.21 of Punjab Police Rules can not be invoked to discharge a Police Constable without any material to prove that police officer is unlikely to prove an effi- cient police officer. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that pe- titioner was having very good record and there were absolutely no adverse remarks to the credit of the petitioner. It is further argued that from the contents of the reply filed by the Department it seems to be a case of misconduct for which regular inquiry ought to have been made before dismissing the petitioner from the services. It is further C.W.P. No.14033 of 1992 -4- argued that no six monthly report was taken into consideration before passing the impugned order dated 26.2.1983. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Prithipal Singh vs. State of Punjab & Ors., JT 2000(8) SC 26. 5. In reply to the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Addl. Advocate General, Punjab stated that against the order of discharge passed under Rule 12.21 of Punjab Police Rules neither appeal nor revision is maintainable. He further stated that having rejected the representation vide order dated 18.4.1984, there was no question of filing the mercy petition as al- leged by the petitioner and Department is not supposed to take into consideration every relevant representation made simultaneously. Learned Addl. Advocate General further stated that in view of inordi- nate delay and latches in filing the writ petition, petitioner is not enti- tled for any relief. 6. Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules reads as under:- “12.21 Discharge of Inefficients – A consta- ble who is found unlikely to prove an efficient police officer may be discharged by the Su- perintendent at any time within three years of enrolment. There shall be no appeal against an order of discharge under this rule.” C.W.P. No.14033 of 1992 -5- 7. From the perusal of Rule 12.21, this Court is of the opin- ion that constable found unlikely to prove an efficient officer may be discharged by the Superintendent of Police within three years of his enrolment. Rule 12.21 further clarifies that against the order of the discharge passed under the rule no appeal can be filed. Since no appeal is provided against the order passed under Rule 12.21, hence, argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner that he kept on waiting for the decision of the mercy petition (Annexure P-3) can not be accepted. From the record it is clear that impugned order was passed on 26.2.1983 (Annexure P-1) and thereafter representation was rejected on 18.4.1984 (Annexure P-2) and thereafter present pe- tition was filed in 1992. Inordinate delay and latches in filing the pre- sent petition has not been properly explained. In view of this, without examining the further arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioner, I am not inclined to invoke jurisdiction of this Court un- der Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Petition is dismissed accordingly. ( ALOK SINGH ) 14th July, 2010 JUDGE ashish