Decided on February 17,2016

State of Punjab and Ors. Respondents


- (1.) The appellant is aggrieved by the order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 16.11.2005 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 97 of 2003, by which the Division Bench affirmed the order of the learned Single Judge, who declined to interfere with the order of dismissal dated 27.6.1991 passed against the appellant. The appellant joined as a Constable in the Police service of the Respondent No. 1/ State. In between 11.7.1986 and 5.6.1989, his services were appreciated. On 5.6.1989 the Deputy Inspector General, Jalandhar Range with the approval of the Director General of Police, Punjab Branch gave a fortuitous promotion to the appellant to the rank of Sub -Inspector of Police with immediate effect for having shown exceptional courage, gallant action and sense of duty in liquidating a dreaded terrorist in a case under FIR No. 82 dated 10.7.1987, who was booked for the offence Under Sec. 307 read with Sec. 34 Indian Penal Code as well as Ss. 25, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act. While granting such fortuitous promotion and forwarding a copy to the concerned SSP Jalandhar, he was also cautioned that the working of the appellant should be closely watched to ensure that there was no deterioration and lack of alertness in the performance of his duties.
(2.) While so, in March 1991, according to the appellant, a tussle broke out as between him and one Didar Singh, who made every effort to forcibly evict the appellant from the premises in which he was tenanted. There was a diary entry in the jurisdiction of Police Station at the instance of the appellant's wife on 8.3.1991, wherein it was alleged that Didar Singh was acting based on the support of. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Chandigarh by name Mr. G.I.S. Bhullar. One of the owners of the tenanted premises by name, Mohinder Singh, who is an Advocate, also forwarded a representation to the Hon'ble Governor of Punjab referring to the undue pressure applied on the appellant for vacating the premises where he was residing with the motive to grab the property of the owners.
(3.) In the above -stated background, when inquiry was held by the Vigilance Department, the appellant stated to have made a detailed statement on 26.6.1991 before the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Chandigarh about the undue involvement of the Deputy Inspector General along with Didar Singh to grab the property in which he was residing.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.