Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.@mdashThe petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, for quashing the impugned order dated December 03, 2007 (Annexure P-17), dismissing her from service.
2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was recruited as a Constable on September 21, 1978 and was promoted as Head Constable on June 02, 1984. She was dismissed from service on January 27, 1994 by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana invoking the provisions of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner had challenged the order dated January 27, 1994, by way of C.W.P. No. 2921 of 1994, which was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated October 18, 2006 and that order was quashed. However, liberty was given to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law by holding an inquiry.
3. The respondents State had challenge the order dated October 18, 2006, in L.P.A. No. 133 of 2007, but in the meanwhile, the petitioner was reinstated into service vide order dated May 12, 2007, passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhaina. Since liberty was given to hold regular inquiry against the petitioner, therefore, SSP Ludhaina, vide his order dated May 12, 2007, ordered regular inquiry against the petitioner appointing Sh. Haish Kumar, PPS, SP, City-II, Ludhiana, under Punjab Police Rules 15.24 and in accordance with the Standing Order 3/1981 of DGP Punjab.
4. The afore-stated L.P.A. was disposed of on November 02, 2007, observing that direction issued by the learned Single Judge, has been complied with since a regular inquiry has been initiated against the petitioner. After a detailed inquiry report dated November 17, 2007, the Inquiry Officer found that not only the petitioner was having links with the criminal elements, but also she has been convicted in a criminal case registered vide FIR No. 30 dated July 06, 1990 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of I.P.C. at Police Station, Civil Lines, Ludhiana, by the Court of Sh. J.S. Chauhan, Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana on November 06, 2003, and was sentenced as under:
1. u/s 419 I.P.C. To undergo Rigorous imprisonment for six months and to
pay fine.
of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine undergo further R.I.
for one month.
2. u/s 467 I.P.C. To undergo Rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay
fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo
further R.I. for three months.
3. u/s 468 I.P.C. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine
of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo
further R.I. for two months.
4. u/s 471 I.P.C. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay
fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine to undergo
further R.I. for one month.
5. The order of conviction and sentence was further upheld by the Court of Sh. J.S. Mahal, Addl. Session Judge, Fast Track Court, Ludhiana, vide order dated July 14, 2006. On November 17, 2007, after receipt of the inquiry report, the punishing authority served a show cause notice to the petitioners as to why she should not be dismissed from service. The petitioned submitted her reply dated November 24, 2007 to the show cause notice and the punishing authority after taking into consideration both the inquiry report and also the reply to the show cause notice, found the charges against the petitioner serious which defiles public faith and trust reposed in the disciplined force and thus vide the impugned order dated December 03, 2007, and also taking into consideration her right to pension, dismissed her from service.
6. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.
7. It has been argued that the petitioner has earned good/very goods ACRs and 9 commendation certificates. The previous order of dismissal dated January 27, 1994 was quashed by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide his order dated October 18, 2006, pursuant to which, the petitioner had joined her service; She had served for many year in the Police Department and her misconduct was not in the definition of gravest act of misconduct. In the end, it was also argued that against the order of conviction in a criminal case, her criminal revision bearing No. 1560 of 2006 is pending in this case.
8. We do not find any merit in the contentions raised by counsel for the petitioner in view of the fact that she has been convicted and sentenced by the competent criminal Courts under various Sections of I.P.C. for a period up to 2 years R.I. as mentioned'' above. According to 16.2(2) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, where an enrolled police officer is sentenced judicially to rigorous imprisonment exceeding one month or to any other punishment not less severe, shall, if such sentence is not quashed on appeal or revision, be dismissed.
9. Even according to learned Counsel for the petitioner, order of conviction and sentence passed by the Addl. A.C.J.M., Ludhiana, dated November 06, 2003 and Addl. Sessions Judge, Ludhiana dated July 14, 2006, have not been quashed. Mere pendency of a criminal revision filed by the petitioner in this Court does not entitled her to be reinstated into service by nullifying the order of dismissal as the language of Rule 16.2.(2) of the Punjab Police Rules, is mandatory as it provides that u case any enrolled police officer who is sentenced judicially to rigorous imprisonment exceeding one month and if, such sentence is not quashed on appeal or revision, then he shall be dismissed from service.
10. We, therefore, find that the impugned order Annexure P-17, does not call for any interference and as such, the writ petition is dismissed in limine without any order as to costs.
Sd/- Mehtab S. Gill, J.
