A police officer convicted of a criminal charge must be dismissed from service as per Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules, with no discretion for lesser punishment.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, J. (Oral)

The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of:-

i. order dated 29.10.2009 (Annexure P-2) whereby petitioner has been dismissed from service;

ii. order dated 23.07.2018 (Annexure P-10) whereby appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed; and

iii. communication dated 25.07.2018 (Annexure P-11) whereby representation of the petitioner for reinstatement has been declined.

2. The petitioner on 18.11.1974 joined Punjab Police as Constable. From time to time, he was promoted and in 2004, he became Sub-Inspector. His date of retirement was 31.05.2013. The petitioner came to be implicated in Complaint No.31 dated 01.10.2001 under Section 302 read with Section34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC'). The petitioner faced criminal trial and he was convicted vide judgment dated 10.09.2009 passed by Sessions Judge, Faridkot. He was awarded sentence of life imprisonment. The petitioner preferred an appeal before this Court which vide judgment dated 05.05.2010 (Annexure P-1) converted sentence of life imprisonment into five years imprisonment under Section 306 of IPC.

3. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Faridkot vide order dated 29.10.2009 (Annexure P-2) dismissed the petitioner from service. He was dismissed on the basis of judgment of conviction. He, at that point of time, was confined in Central Jail, Faridkot. The petitioner preferred an appeal against order of dismissal before the Appellate Authority which came up for consideration before Inspector General of Police, Ferozepur, Ferozepur Cantt., who vide order dated 23.07.2018 (Annexure P-10) dismissed appeal of the petitioner. The petitioner unsuccessfully made representations before authorities seeking reinstatement on the ground that High Court has modified his sentence and similarly situated persons have been visited with lesser punishment

4. Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate submits that neither the petitioner was guilty of gravest misconduct nor was habitual offender, thus, he could not be dismissed from service. As per Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (for short 1934 Rules') a police officer may be dismissed from service if he is guilty of gravest misconduct or cumulative effect of misconduct of the officer amounts to incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police service. The petitioner was convicted under Section 306 of IPC and he was finally awarded sentence of five years imprisonment. The petitioner has already undergone awarded sentence and respondent has reinstated a number of similarly situated officers. The respondent has tried to distinguish case of the petitioner from others on the quantum of sentence. The petitioner cannot be discriminated on the ground of quantum of sentence. The respondent in the additional affidavit has accepted that many other officers have been reinstated though they were awarded sentence and had undergone awarded sentence. One officer was awarded sentence of life imprisonment still he was not dismissed from service.

In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon judgment dated 03.07.2019 of this Court in Navjit Singh v. State of Punjab and others, CWP No.8877 of 2015 and judgment of Supreme Court in Rajendra Yadav v. State of Madya Pradesh and others, 2013 (3) SCC 73.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that petitioner was a police officer and he was governed by 1934 Rules which are in the form of a complete Code. The judgments relating to officials other than officials of Armed Forces cannot be relied upon. The petitioner is relying upon judgment of this Court in Navjit Singh (supra) which relates to an employee of Punjab State Power Corporation who was not governed by 1934 Rules. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 16.2 of 1934 Rules categorically provides that if an officer is convicted, he is liable to be dismissed. There is no discretion with the authorities to retain an officer who has been con