- (1.) The petitioner, an Ex-Constable, has challenged the order of discharge from Police Force issued under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules , 1934 Vol. II (for short, the Rules) in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) The facts :- The petitioner retired from the Army on January 31, 1985. After being enrolled in Punjab Police Service, he was directed to report himself to Senior Superintendent of Police, Ropar, on March 29, 1985. He was sent for training to Jahan Khelan on April 25, 1985. He being an Ex-Serviceman was posted on guard duty at the residence of Shri S.K. Beer, Superintendent of Police. On July 2, 1985, while he was posted on guard duty at the residence of Shri K.S. Beer, Superintendent of Police, one woman posing herself to be a main-servant of the Superintendent of Police tried to seek entry into the residence of the Superintendent of Police. The petitioner stopped her for identification. She put enraged and abused the petitioner. She was allowed to go in after the Guard-In-Charger identified her as private employee of the Superintendent of Police. After the incident, the petitioner was directed to report to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ropar for orders. He was served with an order of discharge. Against the order of discharge, the petitioner filed a representation to the Director General of Police on the ground that the same was passed without affording him an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner's representation was not disposed of. He filed Civil Writ Petition No. 6257 of 1988 in this Court and the Motion Bench passed the following order on July 27, 1988 :- "Present : Mr. S.S. Rathor, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the representation (Annexure P-2) against the discharge order dated 5th July, 1985 (Annexure P-1) has not so far been disposed of. In the circumstances, we direct that the same be disposed of within three months from today. However, if the same has already been decided, the petitioner be intimated the result thereof. Sd/- J.V. Gupta Sd/- M.R. Agnihotri Judges. July 27, 1988. Thereafter the petitioner was informed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Patiala Range, Patiala that his representation had been rejected. The order of discharge is impugned on the ground that it is not envisaged by Rule 12.21 of the Rules. If the attending circumstances resulting in the passing of the order are taken into consideration, it will manifest that it was a camouflage for an order dismissal for misconduct.;