OM PARKASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Assistant Sub Inspector of Police Om Parkash serving in Haryana Police seeks quashing of enquiry report dated 16.11.2007 and the notice/order dated 14.12.2010, whereby he was served a three months notice for compulsory retirement on completion of 55 years of age. While working as ASI, the petitioner was deputed to investigate case FIR No.49 of 2007, registered under Sections 498-A/ 406 IPC at Police Station, Mohana, District Sonipat. The petitioner had conducted the investigation and arrested Sandeep, the accused husband on 5.7.2007. Subsequently, mother and father were also arrested and were produced before the court. The complainant in this case wanted some more offences to be added in the FIR, so that the accused persons could be kept in confinement for a longer period.

(2.) The petitioner, however, refused to oblige them. As per the petitioner, the complainant accordingly carried a grudge against him. The petitioner states that complainant had hatched a conspiracy and made a false complaint before State Vigilance Bureau, Rohtak making allegation of demand of bribe against the petitioner. On 11.7.2007, while the petitioner was standing at the shop of a Washerman near the bus stand to collect his dress, the complainant reached there and tried to offer him bribe. The petitioner, however, refused. The petitioner points out that the investigation in this case were complete before 11.7.2007 and so there was no need for him to ask or accept bribe. The Vigilance Bureau accordingly did not register any case against the petitioner. The complainant, however, approached the higher police officials, whereupon Senior Superintendent of Police initiated departmental enquiry against the petitioner. This enquiry was disposed of on 16.1.2008 and the petitioner was imposed punishment of stoppage of six future annual increments with permanent effect. Thereafter, the petitioner was reinstated, as perhaps he had been placed under suspension. The petitioner complains that the punishment imposed upon him was wrong and in this regard would make reference to the evidence of various witnesses to show that as per their version one person had forcibly tried to give money to the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal against the same, when the Director General has issued him a show cause notice on 9.9.2008. The petitioner filed reply and prayed for being exonerated. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this court and the respondents were directed to decide his appeal. Respondent No.2 then had decided to impose stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect instead of punishment earlier imposed.

(3.) Thereafter the petitioner had approached this court through CWP No.19357 of 2009, which was dismissed on 16.12.2009. The petitioner has now been issued a show cause notice on 14.12.2010 putting him to notice that he is not to be retained after completion of 55 years of age. The petitioner accordingly has filed the present petition.