C.W.P. No. 3076 of 2008 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 3076 of 2008
DATE OF DECISION: November 16, 2009
Bant Singh and Others .........PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
State of Punjab and Others ......RESPONDENT(S)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA
Present: Mr. S.K. Laddi, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL)
This petition has been filed under Sections 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari
quashing order dated 19.02.2008 Annexure P-12 passed by respondent no. 3
i.e. Additional Director General of Police, Intelligence, Punjab, Chandigarh.
It has been pleaded in the petition that the petitioners were
appointed as Constables in Punjab Armed Police. Petitioners were
transferred to Criminal Investigation Department (for short ‘CID’), Sangrur
on deputation and joined as such on various duties. Vide impugned order
Annexure P-12, the petitioners have been repatriated to the parent
department on administrative grounds under Rule 21.25 (2) of Punjab Police
Rules Vol.3 Chapter 21 which provides as follows:-
C.W.P. No. 3076 of 2008 2
“A police officer on deputation to the Criminal
Investigation Department will retain his original position
in the cadre of his district or range. While in the Criminal
Investigation Department he will be eligible for officiating
promotion in that Branch; on reversion from Criminal
Investigation Department he will assume his place in his
original cadre. Officiating promotion may be given in the
district or range in the place of an officer deputed to the
Criminal Investigation Department, such officiating post
lapsing on the officer’s reversion.”
Sub Rule 1 of Rule 21.25 of Punjab Police Rules Vol.3 Chapter
21 provides:-
“Upper and lower subordinate posts other than
those of Inspectors in the Criminal Investigation
Department shall be filled by the deputation of suitable men
from districts for periods of three years extendable by not
more than two years at a time at the discretion of Deputy
Inspector General, Crime Investigation Department.”
It transpires that under Rule 21.25 (1) of the Punjab Police Rules,
it is the discretion of the respondents to take a person on deputation in
Criminal Investigation Department. The provision makes it explicit that the
posts shall be filled by deputation of suitable men from districts.
Learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that the
petitioners have been repatriated to their parent department on being found
in indulging in corrupt practices of demanding Rs. 10,000/- from one
Deepak Kumar Kerosene Oil Depot Holder at Sangrur, on the pretext that he
C.W.P. No. 3076 of 2008 3
used to sell kerosene oil in black market. The petitioners threatened him
and collected a sum of Rs. 4,000/- from him warning him to keep Rs.
6,000/- more, ready. The matter was got inquired. It was concluded in the
inquiry report submitted by DSP/CID that the petitioners had in fact taken
Rs. 4,000/- from Deepak Kumar. The document has been placed on record
as Annexure R-1. FIR case had been recommended to be registered,
however, taking a lenient view by the senior officers, the petitioners have
been simply repatriated to their parent department.
After repatriation, the petitioners appeared before Director
General of Police, Punjab who marked the request to Additional Director
General of Police, Intelligence, Punjab to conduct an inquiry. In inquiry,
allegations of corruption levelled against the petitioners stood substantiated
as would be evident from Annexure R-3, therefore, no relief was given to
the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that Annexure R-3
indicates contradictory facts and, therefore, the charges cannot be said to
have been proved.
I have considered the contention. It has been concluded by
Assistant Inspector General of Police that the charges levelled by the
complainant against the petitioners have been proved during the inquiry.
Be that as it may, the scope of interference in judicial review is to
be seen not only in the facts and circumstances of the case but also
considering the discretion of the respondents in exercising jurisdiction. The
extracted portion from Punjab Police Rules indicates that the respondents
are required to take ‘suitable persons’ on deputation. It is not in dispute that
certain charges were levelled against the petitioners in regard to accepting
C.W.P. No. 3076 of 2008 4
illegal gratification while serving in CID Branch. Exercising discretion in
accordance with authority vested in the respondents, the petitioners have
been repatriated.
The matter of transfer is a discretion of the respondents and is not
to be interfered, with unless mala fide intention is shown. The learned
counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show that the impugned
order has been passed by an authority not having jurisdiction.
Facts and circumstances of the case do not make out a ground for
judicial review of the orders passed on executive side.
Petition dismissed.
16.11.2009 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?