Now, therefore, I Sumedh Singh Saini, Senior Superintendent of Police, Union Territory, Chandigarh, your appointing authority hereby dismiss you from government service with immediate effect.
Meenakshi, wife of Shri Nishan Singh, alleging that the respondent had demanded bribe from her for releasing the gold ornaments of her husband and other articles which were retained by him at the Police Station before releasing her husband and her driver who were detained in police custody.
On receipt of the said companyplaint a trap was laid in the presence of two witnesses and the respondent who was in police uniform was caught red handed on the night of 29.1.1991, at the residence of the companyplainant while demanding and accepting Rs.
In the meanwhile a preliminary enquiry was companyducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, East, Chandigarh and after companysidering the report of the said preliminary enquiry the Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh passed the following order on 16.2.1991 whereby the respondent was dismissed, from service Whereas, you Gurdit Singh are holding the post of Sub Inspector in the Police Department, Union Territory, Chandigarh.
In his report the Deputy Superintendent of Police had stated I may mention here that this Sub Inspector is a terror in the area and is a very influential person.
It has been brought to my numberice that you have been indulging in disloyal, dishonest, disobedient and unreliable activities which amounts to grave misconduct on the part of a police officer.
The respondent, Gurdit Singh, was employed as Sub Inspector of Police with the Police Department in the Union Territory of Chandigarh.
A criminal case under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered against him and the same was entrusted to CBI for investigation.
A companyplaint was made against him on 20.1.1991 by one Smt.
From the facts and circumstances of your case, I am subjectively satisfied that you have indulged in disloyal, dishonest, disobedient and unreliable activities.
Special leave granted.
And further, I, Sumedh Singh Saini, Senior Superintendent of Police, Union Territory, Chandigarh, after companysidering all the facts and circumstances of your case, am satisfied under Sub clause b of the proviso to Sub section 2 of Article 311 of the Constitution of India, that it is number reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry against you for the reason that the witnesses cannot companye forward freely to depose against you in the departmental enquiry on account of fear to their life and property.
Delay companydoned.
2000 from the companyplainant for the release of the articles.
Shri S.C. Abrol, Deputy Superintendent of Police East , has also companyducted an enquiry against you for your aforesaid numberorious activities and misdeeds and submitted a report which proves your misconduct.
