Constable Rajinder Singh vs State of Punjab

Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.—Petitioner impugns the order dated 19.6.2014 (Annexure P-3), whereby the petitioner was not deputed for undergoing the Lower School Course on the ground that he was awarded major punishment, vide order dated 16.3.2012 (Annexure P-4).

Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, written statement on behalf of the respondents has been filed. Petitioner has filed his replication.

Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the order dated 16.3.2012 (Annexure P-4), to contend that appeal of the petitioner was allowed and his punishment was reduced to stoppage of one annual increment without cumulative effect. It was also specifically observed in the order that there will be no effect of punishment on the future career of the petitioner. He further submits that once duration of punishment has already stood expired, the respondent authorities acted in most arbitrary and discriminatory manner, while going against their own official record, including the order dated 16.3.2012 (Annexure P-4), while denying the service benefit to the petitioner for which he was entitled in law. He prays for setting aside the impugned order, by allowing the present writ petition.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State, while relying on the averments taken in para 3 of the preliminary submissions of the written statement, submits that since Rule 16.1. (3) of the Punjab Police Rules (''PPR'' for short) includes withholding of increments in the major punishments, claim of the petitioner was considered, but was not found acceptable. He prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length, after careful perusal of record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the given fact situation of the present case, instant writ petition deserves to be allowed. To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter.

It is the settled proposition of law that stoppage of increment/s without cumulative effect is a minor punishment and the same cannot be said to be a major punishment, as held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Kulwant Singh Gill Vs. State of Punjab, This was the only reason which weighed with the respondent authorities, for denying the service benefit to the petitioner, while passing the impugned order dated 19.6.2014 (Annexure P-3) that the punishment imposed vide order dated 16.3.2012 was a major punishment.

Operative part of the order dated 16.3.2012 (Annexure P-4), although poorly translated, yet the tenor thereof makes it clear and the same reads as under:-

Therefore, feeling that the punishment for withheld of yearly promotions for four years and considering of absenteeism period as without duty/without pay is more and considering the safety of your job and initial stages of you job and take the lenient view towards you reduced this punishment to withheld the promotions on temporary basis for one year (there is no effect of the same will be on your future job) and passing this order and preserves the orders of keeping the duration of absenteeism as without pay leave.

A bare reading of order dated 16.3.2012 would show that appellate authority had made it crystal clear, that punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect awarded to the petitioner, will have no adverse effect on his future service.

Even if the argument raised by learned counsel for the State, which is based on a conservative interpretation of Rule 16.1(3) of PPR, though it does not appeal to reason and is also contrary to the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Kulwant Singh Gill''s case (supra), is accepted, still the punishment order dated 16.3.2012 (Annexure P-4), cannot be used against the petitioner. It is so said, because the punishment order dated 16.3.2012 had already outlived its utility by afflux of time. Further, it had been made clear by the authority, higher in rank, exercising appellate powers that the punishment order dated 16.3.2012 will have no adverse effect on the future service of petitioner. Thus, the impugned order is contrary to the true spirit of order dated 16.3.2012 because of which impugned order cannot be sustained, being patently illegal. In this view of the matter, it can be safely concluded that the impugned order dated 19.6.2014 is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the same cannot be sustained, for this reason also.

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the State could not substantiate his argument that punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect was to operate against the petitioner in future as well and rightly so, because this goes contrary to the abovesaid order dated 16.3.2012. Further, duration of punishment also stood expired. Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that impugned action taken by the respondent authorities is arbitrary and discriminatory because of which the same cannot be sustained.

No other argument was raised.

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view impugned order dated 19.6.2014 (Annexure P-3) is patently illegal and the same is declared as such. The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 19.6.2014 (Annexure P-3) is hereby set aside.

Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that Lower School Course has commenced only on 21.7.2014, i.e. just yesterday. In this view of the matter, the respondent authorities, whosoever is competent in the present case, is directed to depute the petitioner for the Lower School Course, if he is otherwise found eligible for the same.

Resultantly, with the observations made and directions issued, hereinabove, instant writ petition stands allowed, however, with no order as to costs.