← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/12691/2001dismissed

Lakhbir Singh v. Director General Of Police And ORS

2024-05-23Mr. Justice Jagmohan Bansal2 pages

CWP-12691-2001 (O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CWP-12691-2001 (O&M) Date of Decision : 23.05.2024 LAKHBIR SINGH ... PETITIONER

Versus

DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND ORS ... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present:

Mr.Ravi Kaml Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab.

*** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral) 1.

The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 18.05.1990 (Annexure P-8) whereby he was dismissed from service and order dated 27.01.1999 (Annexure P-13) whereby his appeal was dismissed. 2.

The petitioner was dismissed from service by order dated 18.05.1990 and at that point of time, he had yet not completed even 04 years of service. It was his 2nd dismissal. On the earlier occasion, vide order dated 21.11.1988 (Annexure P-6), he was dismissed from service. He was reinstated but, he did not mend his conduct which led to his dismissal from service. 3.

Mr. Gupta is primarily disputing impugned orders on the ground that there was violation of procedural safeguards. The petitioner was not duly served and he was dismissed on the basis of fabricated documents. Anju Goel 2024.05.23 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CWP-12691-2001 (O&M) 4.

From the perusal of record, it is evident that the petitioner joined Punjab Police as Constable on 28.02.1986. He was assigned duty of security of Sessions House, Kapurthala. He remained absent from duty which led to his dismissal vide order dated 27.11.1988. The said order was set aside by appellate authority and he was reinstated in service. Within less than 02 years, he again came to be dismissed from service on account of absence from duty. 5.

The petitioner had served respondent police force for less than 04 years and minimum required service for pension is 10 years. The petitioner is out of service for almost 25 years. In such circumstances, this Court does not find it appropriate to examine legality of impugned orders especially when order of dismissal was subject matter of appeal as well as revision. 6.

Dismissed.

7.

Pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE 23.05.2024 anju Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No Anju Goel 2024.05.23 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh