- (1.) The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing order dated 17.9.1993 (P-1) passed by the Commandant, 7th Bn., P.A.P. Jalandhar Cantt. respondent No. 4. The petitioner has been dismissed from service on account of his absence from duty, which was established in a regular departmental enquiry. The afore mentioned order has been affirmed on appeal by the Deputy Inspector General Police on 14.12.1993 (P-6) and even the revision was subsequently dismissed by the Inspector General of Police, vide order dated 18.3.1994 (P-7).
(2.) Brief facts of the case necessary for disposal of the controversy raised in the instant petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the Punjab Armed Police Wing of the Police Department on 10.10.1971. On 27.3.1975, he was sent on deputation to CID Department where he earned numerous promotions on ad hoc basis. On 13.11.1979 he was promoted as Head Constable (Ad hoc). He is stated to have earned a number of commendation certificates in the CID Department (P-1 to P-3). He was also promoted as Assistant Sub Inspector (Ad hoc) on 3.10.1986 in the CID Department and further earned promotion on the post of Sub Inspector on 19.1.1990. The petitioner has claimed that he has excellent service record as no adverse entry has ever been conveyed to him. However, on 16.3.1992 he was repatriated to his parent department as Head Constable when he served the CID Department for more than 17 years and had earned three promotions up to the rank of Sub Inspector.
(3.) The petitioner did not accept the afore mentioned order of repatriation to his parent department and challenged the same by filing CWP No. 4276 of 1993, which was eventually disposed of on 25.8.1994 with a direction that the order of re-patriation being legal was not to be set aside. Further directions were given that the petitioner be considered for promotion in his parent department w.e.f. the dates when his juniors were promoted at different levels by the competent authority and if necessary by relaxing the rules regarding attending of courses. The matter was taken to Hon'ble the Supreme Court and the S.L.P. was allowed setting aside directions of the Division Bench of this Court for consideration of the case of the petitioner for promotion on the various posts w.e.f. the dates persons junior to him were considered and promoted. The view taken by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of the petitioner alongwith cases of other persons is now State of Punjab v. Inder Singh, 1998 2 SCT 765 However, in Para 21 of the judgment, their Lordships have granted option to persons like the petitioners, who have put in more than 20 years qualifying service, to seek voluntary retirement.;