JAIPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS claim petition has been filed by Head Constable (P) Jaipal Singh s/o Sri Shukhbeer Singh, G.R.P., Haridwar against the punishment order no D -32/ 2004 dated 17.8.2004 awarding censure entry to the Petitioner (Annexure -6) and appellate order dated 20.4.2005 (Annexure -8).

(2.) THE fact of the case are that S.S.P., Haridwar assigned the enquiry against the Petitioner to C.O. Luxor who conducted a preliminary enquiry. This preliminary enquiry was regarding the criminal case No. 178/02 Under Section 323, 324, 504, 506 in which Petitioner is said to have acted negligently. The enquiry officer recommended action against the Petitioner and SI Ram Avatar Sankhwar under Rule 14 (2) of the U.P. Subordinate officers (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. The Petitioner had recommendation filing the F.R. on the basis of merit after investigation. This recommended was withheld by the C.O., Luxor and the investigation was transferred to SI Ram Avatar Sankhwar for reinvestigation in his report, SI Sri Ram Avatar Sankhwar also recommended filing of F.R. The reinvestigation was further transferred to Head Constable Rishipal Singh and thereafter to Head Constable Dheeraj Pal Singh, who submitted the charge sheet in the case. The Petitioner was served a show cause notice on 24.7.2004 proposing censure entry (annexure -4). The Petitioner made representation (Annexure -5), but the same was rejected by Respondent No -2 and censure entry was made against the Petitioner. The appeal (Annexure -7) filed was also rejected on 20.4.2005. The revision against the appellate order (Annexure -9) is still pending for disposal.

(3.) IN the W.S. by the Respondents, it is stated that the petition is against section -5 of the P.S.T. Act. The appeal against the impugned order was disposed of, but no revision was filed for next one year. Hence the petition is time barred and not maintainable. The C.O., Luxor was directed to dispose of the application of the Petitioner as the S.S.P., is senior most officers in Haridwar. The investigation by the Petitioner was faulty and hence reinvestigation was assigned to Head Constable Rishipal Singh who submitted the charge sheet. The censure entry was awarded to the Petitioner for negligence in investigation after due departmental proceedings. The appeal has been disposed of after due consideration of facts and no revision is pending with the department. The Petitioner cannot be declared innocent merely on the basis of report by SI, Ram Avatar Shankhwar. The negligence of SI, Ram Avatar Shankhwar in investigation has been noticed and he too has been punished. The claim petition is therefore without merit and deserves to be rejected.