Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1615 of 1986.
Petitioner: Hardeep Singh
Respondent: State of Haryana & Ors.
Apeal: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1615 of 1986.
Judges: A.P. SEN & B.C. RAY, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Aug 13, 1987
Head Note:
PUNJAB POLICE RULES, 1934:
R. 12.21 – Petitioner, a trainee Constable in Haryana Police Force, was dismissed from service – The matter was squarely covered by the decision of the Constitution Bench in Ajit Singh’s case – Order of termination quashed.
Cases Reffered:
Ajit Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., Writ Petition Nos. 9345-9498 of 1983, decided on 17-10-1984. (SC)
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we have no manner of doubt in our mind that the impugned order dated August 24, 1982 by which the Commandant, 2nd Bn., Haryana Armed Police Force, purported to discharge the service of the petitioner, who was a trainee Constable in the Haryana Police Force, from service under r.12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 was in effect of a punitive nature and must therefore be treated an order for his dismissal from service. Some 16,000 members of the Haryana Police Force went on a symbolic fast for improvement of terms and conditions of their service. The Government picked out 424 of them for taking disciplinary action and they were served with similar orders of dismissal or discharge from service, and the petitioner was one of them. Out of these 425 policemen who were dismissed or discharged from service by way of punishment, 154 of them filed writ petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution before this Court challenging the legality and propriety of their dismissal or termination from service as being violative of the constitutional safeguards provided in Art.311(2). A Constitution Bench of this Court by its order dated October 17, 1984 in AJIT SINGH & ORS. V. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. (Writ Petition Nos. 9345-9498 of 1983) quashed the termination of service of these persons and directed their reinstatement. The matter is squarely covered by the decision of the Constitution Bench in AJIT SINGH’S case and we are bound to follow the same.
2. The writ petition, accordingly, succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order of discharge of the petitioner from the Haryana Police Force under r.12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 passed by the Commandant, 2nd Bn., Haryana Armed Police Force is quashed and it is directed that he be reinstated in service with 50% back wages from the date of termination of his service till the date of his reinstatement. He would, however, be entitled to his full salary and other allowances admissible with effect from date of his reinstatement. It is further directed that there would be no purposes of seniority and pensionary benefits. No costs.
Petition allowed.
1. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we have no manner of doubt in our mind that the impugned order dated August 24, 1982 by which the Commandant, 2nd Bn., Haryana Armed Police Force, purported to discharge the service of the petitioner, who was a trainee Constable in the Haryana Police Force, from service under r.12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 was in effect of a punitive nature and must therefore be treated an order for his dismissal from service. Some 16,000 members of the Haryana Police Force went on a symbolic fast for improvement of terms and conditions of their service. The Government picked out 424 of them for taking disciplinary action and they were served with similar orders of dismissal or discharge from service, and the petitioner was one of them. Out of these 425 policemen who were dismissed or discharged from service by way of punishment, 154 of them filed writ petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution before this Court challenging the legality and propriety of their dismissal or termination from service as being violative of the constitutional safeguards provided in Art.311(2). A Constitution Bench of this Court by its order dated October 17, 1984 in AJIT SINGH & ORS. V. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. (Writ Petition Nos. 9345-9498 of 1983) quashed the termination of service of these persons and directed their reinstatement. The matter is squarely covered by the decision of the Constitution Bench in AJIT SINGH’S case and we are bound to follow the same.
2. The writ petition, accordingly, succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order of discharge of the petitioner from the Haryana Police Force under r.12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 passed by the Commandant, 2nd Bn., Haryana Armed Police Force is quashed and it is directed that he be reinstated in service with 50% back wages from the date of termination of his service till the date of his reinstatement. He would, however, be entitled to his full salary and other allowances admissible with effect from date of his reinstatement. It is further directed that there would be no purposes of seniority and pensionary benefits. No costs.
Petition allowed.
