As a part of its campaign for improvement in service companyditions, the associa tion in the month of July gave a call to all its members to participate in a numbertaking of food campaign which was to take place on 15th August, 1982.
The 1141 petitioner has challenged the validity of this impugned order in this writ petition.
The said association had been companyvassing for im provement in the Service companyditions of the police personnel serving with the Haryana Police and on several occasions made representations for improvement of the service companydi tions of the members of the police service.
A return has been filed on behalf of the respondents sworn by one Raj K. Vashishta, IPS, Commandant 2nd Bn.
The petitioner because of his activities in the Associa tion was served with the impugned order of removal from service without being given any opportunity of hearing and without being asked to show cause against the purported order of dismissal from service.
9345 to 9498 of 1983 before this Court and the Constitution Bench of this Court after hearing, set aside the said order of dismissal from service and directed reinstatement in service without any break in their service.
The respondents, however issued order of dismissal removal against 425 policemen under rule 12.21 of the said rules without serving on them any charge sheet and without giving them any opportunity of hearing against the charges, prior to the passing of the said order of dismissal removal from service.
About 154 of such policemen challenged the order of their dismissal removal from service in writ petition Nos.
On that day the petitioner and other police personnel numbering about 16,000 companysisting of companystables and head constables of Haryana Police Force attended to their duties but they did number take their food in the Mess.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition Civil No.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India .
Haryana Armed Police, Madhuban on the ground that the impugned order of removal from service was in effect a penal order and as such the same being made without companyplying with the requirements of Article 311 2 as well as the Rule 16.24 ix b of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 is wholly arbitrary, illegal and unwarranted and so the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside and the petitioner to be reinstated in service.
1615 of 1986.
The facts of the case in a nutshell are that the petitioner was enrolled as a companystable in the Haryana Police Service in November, 1979 and he had been discharging his duties attached to his office duly and properly.
V. Subba Rao for the Respondents.
1140 The Order of the Court was delivered by C. RAY, J. The petitioner who was appointed as a companystable in the Haryana Police Force on November 7, 1979 has challenged in this writ petition the order dated August 24, 1982 issued by the Commandant, 2nd Bn.
P. Gupta for the Petitioner.
The peti tioner was a member of an unregistered Haryana Police Asso ciation.
