Mahesh Grover, J. - (1.) THE petitioner prays that Annexures P -2, P -4 and P -6 be quashed which have resulted in his dismissal from service. The petitioner who enrolled as a Constable on 10.2.1988, was promoted as an Exemptee Head Constable in April, 2004. On 20.7.2008, the petitioner faced suspension and a regular departmental enquiry was ordered against him. The charge against him was that he had displayed negligence on duty while being assigned a duty as a Security Guard to an accused Surjit son of Ranbir who was facing allegations in F.I.R. No. 148 under Sections 392, 323, 353, 186, 307, 120 -B I.P.C. and for the said negligence, F.I.R. No. 237 dated 20.7.2008 was registered against the petitioner under Sections 224, 225, 120 -B I.P.C. at Police Station City, Narnaul. Vide the same order, it was proposed to hold a regular departmental enquiry against him.
(2.) ON 24.7.2008, Annexure P -2, the order which encompasses the primary grievance of the petitioner, was passed. In this order, the details of his negligence were given which established that he was having an unholy connection with a dreaded criminal who was in custody and who was permitted to use the mobile phone of the petitioner when he was guarding him. This resulted in the said criminal escaping from police custody from the General Hospital, Narnaul on 19/20.7.2008. Since this had transpired when the petitioner was on guard duty, the Superintendent of Police decided to invoke the provisions of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India and while dispensing with a regular enquiry, dismissed the petitioner from service. By virtue of the subsequent orders Annexures P -4 and P -6, the order of the S.P. Narnaul has been upheld. The solitary contention that has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that by virtue of Annexure P -1, a regular departmental enquiry was proposed against the petitioner on 20.7.2008 and 4 days thereafter Annexure P -2 was passed dispensing with such a regular enquiry by invoking Article 311(2) (b) of the Constitution of India. This, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, could not have been done, as once the decision to conduct an enquiry had been taken, there was no occasion for the respondents to dispense with the enquiry.
(3.) IN support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Sangram Singh v. State of Punjab, 1995(3) R.S.J. 161, wherein this Court observed as follows : -;