JUDGMENT

Mr. Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral)

Present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order of discharge dated 21.06.2011 (Annexure P-2). A further prayer has been made for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service with all consequential benefits.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in pursuance of the advertisement (Annexure R-1), the petitioner was appointed as a Temporary Constable Driver (LMV), vide appointment letter dated 06.05.2011 (Annexure R-2). It is further submitted that in pursuance of the said appointment, the petitioner was issued an Identity Card dated 06.05.2011 (Annexure P-1) and that respondent No.2 without holding any departmental inquiry has discharged the petitioner under Rule 12.21 of the PUNJAB POLICE RULES (as applicable to the State of Haryana) (hereinafter referred as 'the Rules'), vide order dated 21.06.2011 (Annexure P-2). It is stated that immediately after passing of the order of discharge, an FIR No.345 dated 17.10.2011 under Sections 420 , 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC was registered at Police Station City, Sonipat against the petitioner on the allegation that the driving licence produced by him was fake. It is submitted that during the course of evidence, the investigating officer had not appeared and PW-3/Rajiv Kmar could not explain the entry and thus, keeping in view the said facts and circumstances, the petitioner was acquitted, vide judgment dated 28.10.2016 (Annexure P-3) by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sonipat. It is further submitted that the petitioner had made a representation to the respondent No.2 after acquittal with a prayer for reinstatement. It is argued that the impugned order is illegal and against law, inasmuch as, no departmental inquiry was conducted prior to the passing of the said order of discharge and moreover, as per Rule 12.21 of the Rules conduct of the police official has to be seen during the service. It is submitted that the issue with respect to the driving licence was an issue which was prior to the appointment of the petitioner and the same cannot be made as a ground to discharge the petitioner. It is further argued that once, the petitioner has been acquitted of the criminal charges, then, at any rate, the order of discharge deserves to be recalled.

3. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the present petition and has submitted that the present petition deserves to be dismissed on the following grounds.

(i) It is submitted that the impugned order was passed on 21.06.2011, whereas, the petitioner has challenged the same by filing the present writ petition in the year 2017 after a delay of more than 5 years and 10 months and thus, the same deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches.

(ii) It is submitted that a perusal of the order dated 21.06.2011 (P-2) would show that the same is non-stigmatic and has been passed in accordance with Rule 12.21 of the Rules and has submitted that as per the said rule, it is open to discharge a police official if he is found unlikely to prove to be an efficient Police Officer at any time within a period of 3 years from the date of his enrollment and that no appeal lies against the said discharge. It is submitted that since the petitioner was appointed vide appointment order dated 06.05.2011 (Annexure R-2) and the impugned order has been passed on 21.06.2011, the same is within a period of 3 years as is mandated under Rule 12.21 of the Rules.

(iii) Learned State counsel has referred to the appointment letter dated 06.