Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, J. - (1.) The present judgment shall dispose of 12 writ petitions i.e. CWP Nos. 14975, 7049, 19179 of 2009, CWP Nos. 2036, 3038, 7234, 12174, 15815, 16856, 16894 of 2010 and CWP Nos. 12402 and 23269 of 2011. Facts, being common, are being taken from CWP No. 14975 of 2009, Pawan Kumar (Constable) vs. State of Punjab and others.
(2.) The challenge in the present set of cases is to the order dated 09.09.2009 (Annexure P -7) passed by the respondent no. 4 -Commandant 13th Battalion PAP, Punjab Police Head Quarter, whereby, the petitioner, who was working as a Special Police Officer (SPO) and had been absorbed in service was terminated from service on account of the fact that he had earlier been involved in a criminal case in spite of having been acquitted. As per respondent no. 4, on account of the policy dated 11.05.2009 (Annexure P -4) issued by the DGP since the petitioner while working as SPO had been acquitted on the basis of technical grounds and the witnesses turning hostile, the case had been taken up for review and the impugned order had been passed. The policy dated 11.05.2009 itself is subject matter of challenge in CWP No. 23269 of 2011, Constable Mohinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, apart from the challenge raised to it in other connected matters also.
(3.) The facts go on to show that the petitioner was appointed as a SPO on 12.09.1994. An FIR bearing No. 160 was lodged on 05.07.2002 at Police Station Sadar Muktsar under Ss. 304/120 -B IPC on account of the unnatural death of his wife Kulwant Kaur, with whom he had got married on 24.11.1999. Keeping in view his arrest, the petitioner had been discharged initially on 10.07.2002 by the said respondent no. 4. The petitioner was thereafter acquitted on 07.04.2003 (Annexure P -2) by the Additional Sessions Judge, Muktsar. A perusal of the judgment would go on to show that two witnesses namely Avtar Singh and his son Sukhdev Singh had not supported the prosecution version and on account of that, since there was no incriminating evidence against the petitioner and his brother, both of them were acquitted of the charges framed against them. In pursuance of his acquittal, the petitioner was reinstated on 24.09.2004 (Annexure P -3) since there was no appeal filed and the period he remained out of service was considered as no duty period on the principle of 'no work no pay' by the Inspector General of Police, Patiala Zone.;