CONSTABLE BRIJ PAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a constable of police, is aggrieved by the order dated June 11, 1988, of the Director General of Police of Haryana, by which his five future increments have been stopped. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) ON August 24, 1984, Sub-Inspector Rameshwar Parsad and Assistant Sub Inspector Sukhbir Singh conducted raid on the house of one Dharam Pal in connection with FIR No. 602 of 1984. It is alleged that at that time, the petitioner was present in the house of Dharam Pal. After the raid, on application was submitted by ASI Sukhbir Singh alleging that the petitioner, who was present in the house of Dharam Pal had obstructed the raiding party from doing the search. After a preliminary enquiry, the matter was placed before the Superintendent of Police, who vide his order dated October, 8, 1984, directed as under :

(3.) THEREAFTER, the District Inspector of Police served a summary of allegations on the petitioner on October 13, 1984. After recording the evidence, a charge-sheet dated January 1, 1985, which had been duly approved by the Superintendent of Police, Karnal, was served on the petitioner on, January 9, 1985. After completion of all formalities, the Superintendent of Police, vide his order dated May 26, 1986, imposed the punishment of "stoppage of two future increments with permanent effect---------" against the petitioner. A copy of this order has been produced on record as Annexure P-3. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the Superintendent of Police was rejected on November 7, 1986, by the Deputy Inspector General of Police. The petitioner then filed a mercy petition before the Director General of Police. It appears that on examination of the matter, it was felt that the misconduct committed by the petitioner called for severer punishment. The Director General of Police accordingly issued a show cause notice to the petitioner calling upon him to explain as to why a penalty of dismissal from service be not imposed on him. The petitioner submitted his reply. Vide order dated June 11, 1988, the punishment, as originally imposed viz. stoppage of two future increments with permanent effect, was enhanced to the stoppage of five future increments. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present petition.