AJMER SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who admittedly earned 33 commendation certificates, mostly with cash rewards, was awarded the punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect. His appeal having failed, his petition for revision to the Director-General of Police resulted in a show cause notice for enhancement of punishment. Besides submitting his reply to the show cause notice, the petitioner sought premature retirement. While the Superintendent of Police had forwarded this application to the Deputy Inspector General, Ambala Range on April 20, 1988, the Director General of Police passed an order on April 20, 1988 reverting the petitioner from the post of Sub-Inspector to that of Assistant Sub-Inspector. Aggrieved by the orders of punishment, the petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The petitioner was enrolled as a Constable on November 8, 1950. He was promoted as Head Constable in the year 1963 and as Assistant Sub Inspector in the year 1975. On July 1, 1979, he was promoted to the rank of Sub Inspector. His name was also included in promotion list F in the year 1985. During the period of his service, the petitioner claims to have been awarded as many as 33 commendation certificates mostly with cash rewards. Copies of the two certificates given to him in the year 1983-84 and again in 1985 have been appended to the petition as Annexures P.1 and P.2.

(3.) In the year 1984, departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on the allegation that while working as Station House Officer, Pehowa, he had failed to establish police barrier on November 16, 1984 to apprehend the suspected culprits who had committed the offence of robbery at Ambala. Another allegation levelled against the petitioner was that although he had shown his departure in the daily diary for patrolling purposes, he was, in fact, present in the police station. The allegations having been denied as totally false, a departmental enquiry was held. The charge relating to the failure of the petitioner to set up the barrier was found to be untenable. Though a copy of the enquiry report is not on the file, this fact finds mention in the order passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ambala Range (Annexure P-6). Even the averment made by the petitioner in paragraph 12(v) in this behalf has not been rebutted by filing any reply. It has, therefore, to be accepted as correct.