ASI KRISHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has approached this Court praying for quashing of the order dated 18.9.2008 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No.4- Deputy Commissioner of Police, Headquarters, Gurgaon, vide which he has been awarded a punishment of stoppage of five future increments with permanent effect. Challenge is also to order dated 11.8.2009 (Annexure P- 4) passed by the Commissioner of Police, Gurgaon on an appeal preferred by the petitioner which has been dismissed as also the order dated 17.4.2010 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Director General of Police, Haryana-respondent No.2 dismissing the revision petition preferred by the petitioner.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner contends that during the enquiry proceedings, complainant-Mamchand s/o Ram Swarup has not supported the case of the prosecution as he had clearly stated before the Inquiry Officer when he appeared as PW-8 that he and the petitioner (ASI Krishan Singh) never happened to be face to face with each other. It has further been stated by him that he has never been scared by the petitioner on the ground of implication in a false case and did not threaten him. He, on this basis, contends that the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer is based on no evidence and, therefore, the same cannot be made the basis for passing the impugned order against the petitioner. Another argument which has been raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that the mandate under Rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (for short 'the Rules'), which requires immediate information to the District Magistrate with regard to criminal offences committed by the Police Officer in connection with the official relations with the public, has not been complied with. He, accordingly, prays that the impugned order cannot sustain.

(3.) COUNSEL for the respondents has also produced copy of the communication dated 12.8.2008 addressed to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, (HQ), Gurgaon from the District Magistrate, Gurgaon wherein permission to proceed against the petitioner, after going through the records, has been granted. He, on this basis, contends that the mandate under Rule 16.38 of the Rules stands fully complied with. Prayer is made for dismissal of the writ petition as being devoid of any merit.