TEJBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was recruited as a Constable on 31.7.1985. He was promoted as Head Constable on 10.9.1996. He passed Lower School Course as well as Intermediate School Course and became eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector. In the year 2002, the petitioner was posted in CIA Staff Nuh, District Gurgaon. One Bharat Singh, Inspector was also posted at CIA Staff Nuh during the period 2001 -02. An anonymous complaint was received by Superintendent of Police, Gurgaon against Inspector Bharat Singh. The allegation was that Bharat Singh had recovered 6 coloured T.Vs. from a truck belonging to Jabbar son of Khubbi and Umar son of Ameen. No police action was taken by Inspector Bharat Singh after allegedly receiving an amount of Rs. 70,000/ -. The further allegation was that he had kept those coloured T.Vs. with him. On the basis of this anonymous complaint, a preliminary enquiry was conducted as per the direction given by Director General of Police, Haryana. In the preliminary enquiry, said Bharat Singh was found innocent. Later, another preliminary enquiry was conducted by Inder Singh Saini, who found the Inspector guilty. This enquiry found Inspector Bharat Singh to have connived with the petitioner and he accordingly was found guilty of the allegations made in the anonymous complaint. Thereafter Inspector Bharat Singh was served with the summary of allegations. In the said allegations, it was clearly stated that the petitioner and Inspector Bharat Singh had not registered case against accused Jabbar and Umar for consideration of Rs. 70,000/ -. The petitioner was also served with the summary of allegations, which he denied. A regular departmental enquiry was held after serving a charge sheet to the petitioner. During this time only, respondent No.4 had written Annual Confidential Report of the petitioner for the year 2001 -2002, in which following remarks were endorsed: -

(2.) A detailed enquiry was conducted against the petitioner as well as against Bharat Singh and they were exonerated of the allegations. The enquiry report was submitted accordingly. The competent disciplinary authority, i.e., Superintendent of Police, however, did not agree with the finding of the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner ofcourse would have a grievance against this action as he would complain that the Superintendent of Police overlooked all the aspects of the occurrence and evidence brought on record and imposed a penalty of stoppage of two future increments with temporary effect. As per the petitioner, the resultant effect of this punishment was over after one year. The petitioner thereupon made a representation for considering his case for promotion to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector. The representation filed by the petitioner was considered and rejected on 11.11.2004.

(3.) THE petitioner submitted yet another representation for his promotion primarily on the ground that co -delinquent Inspector Bharat Singh, who had also been awarded a punishment of stoppage of two increments, was subsequently promoted to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police once the effect of the punishment was over. As per the petitioner, Inspector Bharat Singh even had not preferred any appeal against the punishment so imposed. On this basis, the petitioner not only pleads discrimination but also submits that the effect of punishment being over, the action of the respondents in denying promotion to the petitioner would be unfair and unjustified.