DAYA CHAUDHARY,J. - (1.) The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside order dated 19.08.2012 (Annexure P-2) whereby, the petitioner was debarred from appearing in basic proficiency course undergoing Lower School Course for District Police Armed Battalions and also for setting aside order dated 11.11.2013 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Director General of Police, Punjab, whereby, appeal preferred by the petitioner against order dated 19.08.2012 was dismissed.
(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner joined the second battalion IRB as Constable on 16.12.1992 and thereafter he completed his preliminary training and also passed the Commando Course. He was deputed at Second Commando Battalion, Fourth Commando Battalion and Fifth Commando Battalion from time to time. A departmental inquiry was initiated by Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala vide order dated 18.07.2012. The petitioner was charge-sheeted on 28.08.2012 and statements of witnesses were also recorded. The petitioner was debarred from appearance in the proficiency test vide order dated 19.08.2012 but other candidates were given opportunity. The petitioner made a representation but his request was not accepted. The petitioner submitted reply to the charge-sheet and ultimately, he was exonerated and inquiry was closed vide order dated 08.01.2013. When the case of the petitioner was not considered, he filed appeal, which was also dismissed on 11.11.2013.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Rule 13.7 of the Punjab Police Rules (for short 'the Rules'), the eligibility criteria for appearance in the basic proficiency test was drafted. The eligibility of Constables to sit in the test was that one should be matriculate and should put more than four years of service or in case, the Constable is 10+2, then he should have more than three years of service. There is a proviso that no constable, who has been awarded a major punishment within a period of three years preceding the first day of January of the year in which selection is made, will be eligible for admission in the list. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was wrongly debarred from appearing in the basic proficiency test B1 only on the ground that departmental inquiry was pending against him whereas no major punishment was awarded to him during previous three years as required under Rule 13.7 of the Rules and eligibility criteria as mentioned in the standing order. Learned counsel also submits that one similarly situated candidate, namely, Balraj Singh Constable was also not allowed to attend the course. He approached this Court in case Balraj Singh Constable v. State of Punjab, 1992(1) RSJ 188, which was allowed with the direction to the respondents to send the petitioner forthwith to attend the course. It was also left to the authorities to pass appropriate orders on the question of promotion at the relevant stage, keeping in view the observations mentioned therein and the rules on the subject. It is also the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that charge sheet was prepared against the petitioner on 28.08.2012 and thereafter, he was summoned before the Inquiry Officer and there was no occasion to debar the petitioner on 19.08.2012 as no charge sheet was pending against him. Subsequently, the petitioner was found innocent in the inquiry and Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala agreed with the inquiry report which was approved by him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon judgments of this Court in Constable Balraj Singh's case (supra) as well as Constable Karan Chand v. State of Punjab and others, CWP No.582 of 1993 decided on 15.07.2013 in support of his contentions.;