IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.6790 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : JULY 21, 2010 KULBIR SINGH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. BS Jaswal, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 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 order dated 12.3.2007 (Annexure P-3) and order dated 14.2.2009 (Annexure P-6). The petitioner, a Head Constable, was proceeded against in departmental proceedings on the charge that he along with his associates, picked up one lady-Ranjit Kaur in the car, with ill intentions. In the meantime, Station House Officer, Police Station, Civil Lines, Amritsar, reached there and on seeing him, the associates of the petitioner disappeared from the scene. The petitioner was caught with the lady and Civil Writ Petition No.6790 of 2009 2 both were challaned under Section 109, Code of Criminal Procedure. A departmental inquiry was conducted, whereupon the charges stood proved. The punishment imposed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar, is forfeiture of 5 years of past service with permanent effect. Further punishment is that the petitioner would not be entitled to pay beyond what was received by the petitioner during the period while his services were under suspension. The order of punishment has been upheld in appeal. It seems that the petitioner filed a mercy appeal, whereupon the matter was remanded, however, the Inspector General of Police, Border Range, Amritsar, on examining the documents, maintained the punishment. It is not the case of the petitioner that the rules have not been followed in carrying proceedings against the petitioner, causing prejudice to the rights of the petitioner, or that opportunity of hearing was not given to the petitioner. On consideration of the charge, I find that the punishment is commensurate with the misconduct of the petitioner and, therefore, the same also calls for no interference. No grounds for judicial review of orders, in the facts and circumstances of the case, are made out. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. July 21, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?