The charge of retaining live ammunition constituted 'gravest misconduct' as per Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules, and the penalty imposed was proportionate.

TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.

1. The petitioner who was serving as a Constable under the Haryana Police has filed the instant petition impugning the order dated 01.08.2011 at Annexure P-1 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar whereby he has been dismissed from service. Challenge is also to the orders dated 25.01.2012 at Annexure P-3 and 05.07.2014 at Annexure P-4 passed by the Appellate and Revisional Authorities affirming the penalty of dismissal.

2. Brief facts that would require notice are that the petitioner joined as a Constable in the year 1998. A departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner in relation to an incident dated 13.06.2011. On such date, the petitioner was on Quarter Guard duty in Police Lines, Yamuna Nagar and had been issued an Insas Rifle No.14. On following date, when the Guard Duty was changed and the weapons were checked, it was found that the magazine of rifle No.14 issued to the petitioner was short by 5 rounds of ammunition. A search was carried out in the Police Lines to trace the petitioner. After lapse of certain time, petitioner was traced and he was called upon to explain as regards the missing ammunition but he denied having retained the same. However, on a personal search having been carried out, the 5 rounds of live ammunition were recovered from his trouser pocket. A police official of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police was appointed as an Inquiry Officer. After having recorded the statement of a number of prosecution witnesses as also a defence witness, report dated 28.06.2011 at Annexure P-2 was furnished holding the petitioner to be guilty. After issuance of show cause notice dated 30.06.2011 and having been afforded an opportunity of personal hearing, the order of dismissal dated 01.08.2011 has been passed by the Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar. The appeal and revision preferred by the petitioner have also been declined.

3. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the charge of having retained 5 rounds of ammunition cannot be construed to fall within expression of “gravest misconduct” calling for the imposition of major penalty of dismissal in terms of Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules. In support of such submission, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of this Court in Mehboob Ali vs. State of Haryana and others, 2016 (4) SLR 22 and Balwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, 2013 (1) PLR 323. Counsel has also argued that the mandate of Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules has not been carried out as while imposing the extreme penalty of dismissal from service, the Punishing Authority has not considered the length of service rendered by the petitioner i.e. of almost 12 years. It has further been argued that the Inquiry Officer has not appreciated the evidence brought on record in the true perspective and the statements of the prosecution witnesses were contradictory. It has, however, being conceded by the petitioner that he did not cross-examine any of the prosecution witnesses as he had been orally assured that he would be let off by awarding a minor penalty. A submission has also been raised as regards quantum of punishment by submitting that the same is grossly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct and no weightage has been assigned to the statement recorded of the father of the petitioner who had appeared as a defence witness as regards the mental disorder that the petitioner was suffering from and which was duly supported by medical record.

4. Counsel for the petitioner has been heard at length and pleadings on record have been perused.

5. A regular departmental inquiry stands concluded against the petitioner. There are no allegations as regards any irregularity or illegality having been conducted during the course of the inquiry proceedings. The scope of judicial review in matters of imposition of penalties after culmination of inquiry proceedings is limited to the decision making process and