M.R. Agnihotri, J. - (1.) In this writ petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner Mohinder Pal, formerly Police Constable No. 1272 of district Amritsar has challenged the order dated 26th Oct., 1978 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar (Annexure P-2t by which he was dismissed from the Police Force. In addition to this order of dismissal, the petitioner has also challenged the order dated 3rd April, 1979, passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jullundur Range Annexure P-3) dismissing his appeal, as also the order dated 25th Sept., 1979, passed by the Inspector General of Police, Punjab (Annexure P-4), rejecting the revision petition.
(2.) The petition joined the Police Force on 4th July, 1955, to start with in district Gurdaspur and lateron since 1st June, 1957 he is in district Amritsar. He was suspended with effect from 16th April, 1976, for having been arrested in case F I.R. No. 261 dated 6th Oct., 1975, under sections 307/506/353. Indian Penal Code, Police Station Kotwall, Amritsar. On the basis of the aforesaid First Information Report, petitioner Mohinder Pal along with sever, other persons, who were Municipal employees of Amritsar, was sent up for trial. The prosecution, in, support of the case, produced five witnesses. Two of them supported the prosecution version which was, however, found to be contradictory by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, in his judgment dated 31st May, 1977. The gravemen of the charge against the accused persons, including the petitioner, was that on 5th Oct., 1975, at about 10 P M., the accused persons, armed with pistols assaulted the police party, threw brickbats towards it and fired shots and thereafter ran away. Curiously enough, according to the statement of A.S.I. Amrik Singh P.W. 4, no member of the police party made any attempt to arrest Mohinder Pal and Ram Lubhaya, the accused persons, and none of them went after them when they had gone after threatening the police party. S.I. Kulwant Singh P.W. 6 could not even identify six out of the eight accused in the Court. It is also admitted by the investigating officer before the learned Additional Sessions Judge that no identification parade was held for identification of the accused persons. The occurrence had taken place during the night and the witnesses were not of that locality. Thus, according to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the failure of the prosecution to get the accused identified from the witnesses had damaged the case of the prosecution. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was not impressed by the prosecution evidence as no empty cartridge case was recovered from the place of occurrence. It was also admitted by the prosecution that no injury was caused by any of the accused persons on any of the members of the police party at the time of the occurrence. This, according to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, had shaken the genuineness of the prosecution case Finally, the learned Additional Sessions Judge also found that even though the police force was quite heavy and well-equipped with fire arms, accused persons Mohinder Pal and Ram Lubhayya, who were admittedly un-armed, were not arrested, even though they were alleged to have threatened the Snob Inspector and other members of the Police party with dire consequences. As a result, finding the version of the Police as most improbable and untrustworthy, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted all the accused persons by his judgment dated 31st May, 1967 (Annexure P-1).
(3.) After acquittal from the criminal case, petitioner Mohinder Pal was to be reinstated to the rank of Constable which he was holding during the last twenty-three years prior to his acquittal. But instead of doing that, a departmental inquiry was ordered against him on the same charges and on the same evidence which had already been examined in detail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge while acquitting the accused persons in the criminal case.. The, Senior Superintendent of Police, after considering the inquiry report submitted to him by the Inquiry Officer, -Shri Darshan Singh, passed. the order dismissing the petitioner from the Police Force on 26th Oct., 1978 (Annexure P-2). The, order of the learned Senior Superintendent of Police was appealed against before the Deputy Inspector General of Police but the appeal was dismissed as being without any merit on 3rd April, 1979 (Annexure P-3). The appellate order was again made the Subject-matter of revision petition before the Inspector General of Police, which too was rejected on 25th Sept., 1979 (Annexure P-4). The reproduction of the charge, discussion of the evidence, its appreciation and the conclusions arrived at by the punishing authority, the appellate authority and the revisional authority are almost identical. All the three departmental authorities have come to the conclusion that since Banta Singh P.W. was won over by Mohinder Pal (petitioner) which has resulted into his acquittal in the criminal case, the departmental inquiry could be held against him and the punishment of dismissal from service was the only punishment to meet the ends of justice.;