LPA No. 546 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 546 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision 20.08.2010 Prem Prakash -----Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others ---Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. R.K. Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Kohal Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The unsuccessful petitioner has filed the instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent challenging the view taken by the learned Single Judge holding that the writ petitioner-appellant was rightly discharged on 19.03.1986 under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police (for brevity 'the Rules'). The learned Single Judge has noticed that the writ petitioner-appellant was appointed as Constable on 01.08.1985 and he failed to disclose pending F.I.R. Dated 27.02.1985 registered under Section 353, 332, 186 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC'). Later on, he was given fresh appointment on 10.11.1987. On a complaint sent to the President of India and the Ministry of Home, it was recommended to the State Government to initiate action against the appellant-writ petitioner. It was, thereafter, that the Financial Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Haryana (Home Department) issued direction to the Director General of Police to discharge him from service. The learned Single Judge has recorded the reasons that the LPA No. 546 of 2010 (O&M) -2- writ petitioner-appellant had concealed the pendency of F.I.R. dated 27.02.1985 registered under the various provisions of the IPC, which was sufficient to infer that the writ petitioner-appellant was not likely to become an efficient Police Officer. Therefore, he fell within the mischief of Rule 12.21 of the Rules leading to his discharge. Another reasons recorded by the learned Single Judge is that let his acquittal in the criminal case was merely on technical ground of non production of evidence by the Investigating Officer and that he was arrested in the aforesaid First Information Report. The learned Single Judge rejected the arguments that the order of discharge passed by the respondent was to be regarded as order of termination. The learned Single Judge has placed reliance on various judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court supporting the proposition that discharge simpliciter is not to attract provisions for holding of any regular departmental enquiry. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the considered view that the view of the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any legal infirmity. We are satisfied that the writ petitioner-appellant has been rightly shown the door by discharge and therefore, appeal is liable to be dismissed. For the reasons aforementioned, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE August 20, 2010 Atul