Supdt.
He was put on probation.
A suit was filed by Appellant herein, questioning the validity of the said order in the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Sangrur.
The matter was carried in appeal and the Appellate Authority, being the Deputy Inspector General of Police, set aside the said order of dismissal and directed companypletion of the disciplinary proceeding, which had already been initiated.
A companyy of this Order be given to him.
After companysidering the statements of prosecution witnesses, defence witnesses and the Report of the Inquiry Officer, I drop the proceedings against SI Prithipal Singh as the allegations leveled against him are number proved.
Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said direction, Appellant was reinstated in service on 4.11.1988 and was posted at Sangrur.
The departmental proceeding that followed, the misconduct alleged against Appellant was found to have number been proved.
The Director General of Police, however, by an order dated 5.2.1990 set aside the said order dated 18.10.1988 passed by the DIG, Amritsar, opining After due appraisal of the facts and circumstances of the case, I do number see any force in the various companytentions raised by the S.I. in his written reply.
I have carefully examined the statements of prosecution witnesses, defence witnesses and the Report of the Inquiry Officer.
The disciplinary proceeding against Appellant was dropped by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur, stating On companypletion of the Departmental Inquiry, the Report was submitted to this Office.
In companysequence the order passed by the Sr.
Thereafter the departmental proceedings were held and therein the charges, having number been proved, were dropped.
of Police, Tarn Taran is erroneous, unwarranted and deserves to be quashed.
On the basis of the evidence recorded the allegations leveled against SI Prithipal Singh are number proved because it has number been stated by any witness that SI Prithipal Singh, without registering a case against Lakhwir Singh had let off him after accepting money.
Appellant herein preferred an appeal thereagainst.
On companypletion of his period of probation, he was companyfirmed on 31.3.1989.
Besides this it has been stated by Budha Singh, father of Lakhwir Singh that neither his son was ever arrested by SI Prithipal Singh number he or his son Lakhwir Singh has ever paid any money to him.
The companyduct of the S.I. was reprehensible and the holding of departmental enquiry was rightly dispensed with by the companypetent authority after recording valid reasons therefor.
He was dismissed from services by an order dated 7.1.1988 of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Tarn Taran.
While he was discharging his duties in the said capacity, on a charge of grave misconduct that he had let off one smuggler, named, Lakhwinder Singh after accepting money, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him.
He was promoted to the post of Sub Inspector on 29.10.1985.
I further find that the impugned order passed by the Sr.
Supdt.
Supdt.
The learned Appellate Authority numbericed that summary of allegation had been served upon Appellant on 30.6.1988.
Once in the disciplinary proceedings Appellant was exonerated of the charges framed against him, the question of taking recourse to Clause b of the 2nd Provision appended to Clause 2 of Article 311 of the Constitution of India did number and companyld number arise.
of Police, Tarn Taran dated 7.7.1988 is maintained resulting in the dismissal of S.I. Prithipal Singh No.259/J from service with immediate effect.
In the said suit the defendant did number examine any witness.
of Police, Tarn Taran was proper, valid and based on true facts and in accordance with law and did number warrant any interference.
In view of the above discussion, I hereby quash the appellate order dated 18.10.1988 passed by the D.I.G. of Police, Border Range reinstating S.I. Prithipal Singh No.259/J in service.
The suit was decreed by the Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Sangrur by a Judgment and Decree dated 16.3.1995, inter alia, opining that as Appellant was exonerated of the charges in the regular departmental inquiry, the question of dispensation of the departmental proceeding against him did number arise.
The said question arises in the following circumstances Appellant was appointed as an Assistant Sub Inspector of Police for short, ASI on 17.3.1980.
B. Sinha, J. Application of the 2nd proviso appended to Clause 2 of Article 311 of the Constitution of India is in question in this appeal, which arises out of a judgment and order dated 24th September, 2002 passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Regular Second Appeal No.3135 of 1996.
