V.K. Bali, J. - (1.) CONSTABLE Lal Singh, appellant herein, was visited with the order dated 14.2.1989 forfeiting his two years approved service on temporary basis. He challenged this order by filing Civil Writ Petition bearing No. 3709 of 1992. As he remained unsuccessful in his endeavour in challenging the order aforesaid, he has filed this appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent against the order of learned Single Judge dated 20.4.1993. Appellant (hereinafter to be referred as 'the petitioner') was recruited on 4.8.1981. It appears that under the provisions of Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, petitioner was discharged from service vide order dated 19.1.1984. He preferred appeal against the aforesaid order, which was accepted on 28.5.1985 (Annexure P -2). However, for the incident, for which he was discharged, he was charge sheeted on 20.5.1987. The charge framed against him was that he alongwith certain other persons was deputed for duty in District Jalandhar in connection with Dushehra festival and was put on guard duty. Under the influence of liquor, he started creating rowdyism and threatened the public with weapon, which he had officially been provided. In the resultant enquiry on the charge aforesaid, charge of rowdyism or threat to public with weapon could not be substantiated. However, he was held guilty of having liquor while on duty. The finding aforesaid resulted into order dated 14.2.1989, vide which two years of his approved service was forfeited on temporary basis. As a result of this order, increments, which were due to him on 1.8.1989 and 1.8.1990, were not released to him. These increments were, however, released with effect from 1.8.1991 vide order Annexure P -4.
(2.) ON 28.2.1992, a test, as contemplated under Rule 13.7 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, was held to select Constables for being brought on List -B as also for being deputed the said Constables for Lower School Course. Even though petitioner qualified written test but when he appeared for parade test on 5.3.1992, he was not permitted to take the same. He was told that he was not eligible on the ground that a major punishment had been given to him within a period of three years preceding the first day of January, 1992. Confronted with a major hurdle in his service career of not being deputed to the Lower School Course, the petitioner filed writ petition, giving rise to the present Letters Patent Appeal, with the result already indicated above. The cause of the petitioner was contested and in the written statement filed by the respondents, it was, inter alia, pleaded that petitioner was not eligible to appear in B -I test according to Standing Order framed under Rule 13.20 of the Punjab Police Rules inasmuch as a major punishment has since been given to him within a period of three years preceding the first day of January, 1992 and that forfeiture of approved service or withholding of increments amounts to a major punishment in view of provisions of Rule 16.1 -A (3) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934. On facts, it was pleaded that in view of Lok Sabha/Vidhan Sabha elections held in January, 1992, the test, which was to be held in January, 1992, was postponed and actually conducted in the month of February, 1992, under the orders of the Director General of Police, Punjab.
(3.) LEARNED Single Judge, on the controversy projected before him, opined that there was no explanation for inordinate delay for challenging the impugned order and on this short ground alone, challenge to the order dated 14.2.1989 deserved to be rejected. It may be recalled that as per admitted position, the impugned order came to be passed on 14.2.1989 and petitioner filed writ petition in 1993 when he was not permitted to take parade test even though he had qualified the written test for being sent to Lower School Course. Learned Single Judge despite having held that petition was belated and deserved to be dismissed on that ground, examined the controversy on merits and found no substance in the contentions raised on behalf of petitioner in his endeavour to show that impugned order could not sustain.;