131+262 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

Date of Decision: 03.11.2025 Dilbag Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and Others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present:- Ms. R.K. Grewal, Advocate, Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Advocate and Mr. Deepanshu Meena, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab.

****

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of orders dated 10.08.2019 (Annexure P-2), 27.05.2020 (Annexure P-3), 11.04.2022 (Annexure P-4) and 24.07.2024 (Annexure P-5).

2. The petitioner joined Punjab Police Force as Special Police Officer (SPO) on 15.11.1989. He was allotted Constabulary Number. He was promoted from time to time and in 2019 was holding Local Rank of Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI). An offence of robbery came to be committed by two police officials namely LR/ASI Rajpreet Singh and LR/ASI Joginder Singh and their accomplice Surinder Singh, resident of Pathankot. They robbed Father Anthony, resident of Partap Pura, Jalandhar. They concealed looted money. The offence of robbery was committed on 29.03.2019. The petitioner was called by Investigating Officer and his statement dated 11.04.2019 was recorded. He disclosed that he had given his car to LR/ASI Joginder Singh on 29.03.2019. Car was supplied on the asking of LR/ASI Joginder Singh who had disclosed that his car has met with an accident, thus, he needed car. The petitioner was unaware about the misuse of car. The respondent registered FIR No.01 dated 12.04.2019 under Sections 406, 34, 392 & 120-B of IPC and Section 13(1)(a) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 at Police Station State Crime, S.A.S. Nagar against aforesaid three persons. The petitioner was not named in the FIR. LR/ASI Joginder Singh was arrested on 01.05.2019. In his disclosure statement, he disclosed that he had taken car from petitioner. On the basis of said statement, petitioner was implicated in the alleged offence. He was arrested and thereafter sent to judicial custody. The respondent initiated departmental proceedings against the petitioner and other Police Officials while petitioner was in judicial custody. The respondent sought approval from Special Judge, Mohali to continue departmental proceedings while petitioner was in judicial custody. The petitioner was supplied copy of chargesheet, however, he refused to participate in the proceedings taking plea that he would participate after his release from judicial custody. The respondent formed an opinion that as petitioner is not participating in the departmental proceedings, thus, order should be passed under Clause (b) of second proviso to Article 311(2) of Constitution of India. Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) vide order dated 10.08.2019 ordered to dismiss him from service. The order was passed invoking Clause (b) of second proviso to Article 311(2). The petitioner unsuccessfully preferred appeal as well as revision before Higher Authorities.

3. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that petitioner was in custody still respondent initiated departmental proceedings. Concededly, the petitioner requested respondent to defer proceedings till he was in judicial custody. The respondent after serving chargesheet was duty bound to conclude departmental proceedings which may be ex parte. There was no occasion to dispense with departmental inquiry. The respondent wrongly and contrarily to Rule 16.24(2) of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (in short ‘PPR’) as well as Clause (b) of second proviso to Article 311(2) dispensed with inquiry.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that petitioner did not participate in the departmental inquiry despite permission granted by trial Court, thus, department was bound to dispense with inquiry. It was petitioner who opted not to participate in the departmental proceedings, thus, cannot take advantage of his ill deeds.

5