MEGH SINGH CONSTABLE Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioner for issue of appropriate writs, orders or directions quashing the orders by which the petitioners name was removed from what he calls list 'C' prepared under the Punjab Police Rules as in force in Himachal Pradesh; quashing the orders of his reversion from the post of a Head Constable to that of a Constable; quashing the inquiry proceedings started against him in pursuance of a charge-sheet served on him and generally to pass such other orders as may be fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(2.) The facts leading to the present petition, briefly stated, are as follows:-The petitioner joined as a police constable in the Punjab Police and was posted as such in the Kangra District on 1-1-1942. According to him he had a good record of service and after 23 years of devoted service his name was included in promotion list C' by the Superintendent of Police, Kangra early in 1965 and his being brought on list C was even approved by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jullundur Range in April, 1965. On 8-11-1965, the petitioner was promoted to officiate as Head Constable subject to the condition flat if necessary, be would be reverted to his substantive rank of a constable when lower qualified constables were available for being posted as Head Constables. According to the petitioner, Shri P. C. Wadhwa, respondent no 2 was posted as Superintendent of Police, Kangra in May, 1965 and on account of his refusal to give false testimony as desired by the said Superintendent of Police in a case re-opened by him mala fide and in order to wreak vengeance respondent no. 2 first got initiated a departmental inquiry against him early in 1966, then reverted him to the post of a constable and even went further by striking off his name from promotion list 'C'. The petitioner challenges all these three actions as being illegal, mala fide, highhanded, unjust and arbitrary. It may be mentioned here that in the meantime the petitioner was exonerated in the departmental action that was commenced against him.

(3.) Rule nisi was issued to the three respondents cited by the petitioner In his petition but surprisingly enough, the first respondent, the State of Punjab, has neither filed a return nor contested the petition. In fact, B. Sita Ram, Advocate who appeared for the first respondent did not address any arguments at the Bar and contended himself by adopting what was said on behalf of the second respondent. Shri P. C. Wadhwa, the second respondent, did file a return and very ably argued the matter in person before me.