Punjab-Haryana High Court
Palwinder Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 18 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038352
2024:PHHC:038352
CWP-6396-2024 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
153 CWP-6396-2024
Date of Decision: 18.03.2024
Palwinder Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present:- Mr. A.K. Walia, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Aman Dhir, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab
***
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 25.03.2016
(Annexure P-2) whereby he has been dismissed from service.
2. The petitioner was enrolled as a Constable in Punjab Police in the
year 1994. On 06.12.1996, he solemnized marriage with Balwinder Kaur and
the couple was blessed with a girl child. On account of matrimonial discord,
his estranged wife lodged a criminal complaint against him under Section 406,
498-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC'). The Trial Court vide
judgment dated 02.12.2011 convicted him under Section 498-A of IPC. He
was awarded sentence of 2 years. He unsuccessfully preferred appeal before
the Appellate Court. He filed CRR No.578 of 2016 before this Court which
has been allowed vide judgment dated 05.01.2024 (Annexure P-3).
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038352
2024:PHHC:038352
3. The respondent vide order dated 25.03.2016 (Annexure P-2), on
account of conviction, dismissed the petitioner from service. The order dated
25.03.2016 (Annexure P-2), as enclosed by petitioner, is reproduced as
below:-
"Complaint Diary No.572/B dated: 02.02.2016 from Balwinder
Kaur wife of Head Constable Palwinder Singh
No.311/Ludhiana (Rural) daughter of Darshan Singh resident
of Bodalala, Tehsil Jagraon came present and informed the
office that her husband HC/PR Palwinder Singh
No.311/Ludhiana (Rural) resident of Kiri, Tehsil Jagraon,
District Ludhiana is serving in the Police Department. He was
convicted by Hon'ble Court of Sh. Girish Kumar, SDJM
Jagraon vide Judgment dated: 02.11.2011 under Section 498-A
IPC, he was sentenced to undergo RI 2 years and also pay a
fine of Rs.3000/-, upon which, present employee preferred to
file an appeal against the judgment before the Court of Sh. S.S.
Mann, ADJ, Ludhiana. The Hon'ble court of Sh. S.S. Mann
dismissed the appeal vide order dated 06.01.2016. Now the
above employee is lodged in central jail Ludhiana. Due to this,
in compliance of PPR 16.2 (2), HC P/PR Palwinder Singh
No.311/Ludhiana (Rural) is dismissed from duty from today
i.e., 25.03.2016 after-noon. This employee is being informed
that he reserves right to file appeal to higher Authority and if
he wants to file an appeal, then as per Punjab Police Rule
16.30 and 16.32, he can file appeal within 30 days after receipt
of order.
Order be entered in registered.
Senior Superintendent of Police
Ludhiana (Rural)"
4. Mr. A.K. Walia, Advocate submits that petitioner was dismissed
from service on the sole ground of conviction and as per second proviso to
Rule 16.2(2) of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (for short '1934 Rules'), the
Disciplinary Authority is duty bound to re-consider punishment of dismissal
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038352
2024:PHHC:038352
in case conviction is set aside by Appellate or Revisionary Court. This Court
has set aside judgment of conviction, thus, case of the petitioner needs to be
re-considered in the light of aforesaid Rule.
5. Notice of motion.
6. Mr. Aman Dhir, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, who on
advance notice is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of the
respondents. He submits that representation of the petitioner is pending before
the Disciplinary Authority i.e. Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana
(Rural)- respondent No.3. He assures the Court that competent authority
would decide claim of the petitioner within eight weeks from today.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner agrees to the aforesaid
arrangement.
8. In the wake of statement of both sides, the present petition is
disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3-Senior Superintendent of
Police, Ludhiana (Rural) to decide claim of the petitioner in terms of proviso
to Rule 16.2 (2) of 1934 Rules within eight weeks from today.
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
18.03.2024
Mohit Kumar
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038352
3 of 3
