Augustine George Masih, J. - (1.) PETITIONER has approached this Court praying for setting aside of the order dated 03.11.2012 (Annexure P -5) vide which the petitioner has been dismissed from the service by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jind, by invoking Article 311 (2) (b) of Constitution of India and order Annexure P -7 passed by the Inspector General of Police, Hisar Range, Hisar -respondent No. 3 whereby the appeal, preferred by the petitioner against the order of his dismissal, stands rejected.
(2.) IT is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, while serving as an Assistant Sub Inspector was entrusted with the responsibility to serve the warrant of arrest dated 26.10.2012 upon one Shri Sultan Singh passed by the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Safidon, whereby the said person was charged with offences under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. Petitioner had gone to execute the said warrant of arrest, it is there that a scuffle took place between the petitioner and Sultan Singh, who, according to the petitioner, has a dubious character as there are as many as five FIRs registered against him and in support thereof, he has referred to Annexure P -2 (page 61 of the present petition) which contained the list of cases registered against said Sultan Singh, which information was supplied to him under the Right to Information Act. It is at his behest, thereafter that a complaint was filed against the petitioner where the allegations were made that the petitioner had demanded an amount of Rs. 5,000/ - for proceeding with a complaint which was submitted by Sultan Singh of which the petitioner was an Investigating Officer. On the basis of this complaint, it is alleged that the amount of Rs. 5,000/ - was received by the petitioner and when the raiding party went to arrest the petitioner, although there was no recovery effected from him of the amount of Rs. 5,000/ -, however, when his hands and pockets of his clothes were washed, the water turned pink which indicated that an amount, which was handed over by the complainant Sultan Singh, was received by the petitioner and on that basis, FIR No. 25 dated 01.11.2012, under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, was registered at Police Station State Vigilance Bureau, Hisar, against the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested on the very same date i.e. 01.11.2012. A departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner vide order dated 02.11.2012 and by the same order, he was placed under suspension with effect from 01.11.2012 for having been arrested in the FIR registered against him. On 03.11.2012, the impugned order (Annexure P -5) has been passed by invoking Article 311 (2) (b) of Constitution of India asserting therein that the misconduct attributed to the petitioner would be detrimental to public interest. A common experience which has been referred to in the said order is that the witnesses could be terrorized and intimidated by the police officials which is a common tactic adopted and the complainant would not come forward against the petitioner in the departmental enquiry, if held, against the petitioner. It has also been mentioned that an enquiry was got conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Safidon, and the said official had given a written report which was received in the office of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jind, and taking the same into consideration, the competent authority came to a conclusion that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an regular departmental enquiry against the petitioner nor would it be in public interest to do so which, therefore, led to the competent authority to exercise the powers under Article 311 (2) (b) of Constitution of India for dispensing with the holding of the regular departmental enquiry against the petitioner resulting in order of dismissal.
(3.) PETITIONER , thereafter, has preferred an appeal against this order of dismissal which stands rejected by the Inspector General of Police, Hisar Range, Hisar vide order Annexure P -7 holding therein that since the petitioner was found indulging in corrupt practices of demanding bribe of Rs. 5,000/ - from the complainant for taking action on the complaint/application submitted by his father, it amounted to a grave misconduct in nature which is unbecoming of a police officer and the powers exercised by the Senior Superintendent of Police, being in consonance with law, did not call for any interference in appeal.;