KRISHAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was serving as a Constable under the Haryana Police was dismissed from service vide order dated 28.05.2010 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Karnal (Annexure P-4). His statutory appeal was partly accepted by the Inspector General of Police, Rohtak Range, Rohtak vide order dated 22.09.2010 (Annexure P-6), whereby he was directed to be reinstated back in service and the punishment was reduced to stoppage of two future annual increments with permanent effect. The Director General of Police, Haryana while invoking the powers under Rule 16.28 (1) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 passed order dated 29.07.2011 (Annexure P-10), whereby the penalty of stoppage of two annual increments with permanent effect awarded by the Inspector General of Police, Rohtak was enhanced to dismissal from service. The instant writ petition has been filed impugning the aforenoticed three orders at Annexures P-4, P-6 and P-10.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was enrolled as a Constable on 23.11.2003. A departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner and another official namely HC Jagtar Singh on the allegations that while they were posted in Police Station Nissing they had received illegal gratification from Baljit Singh S/o Sh. Hoshiar Singh and Bijinder Singh S/o Sh. Mahabir Singh, who were transporting animals from Haryana to U.P. The Inquiry Officer i.e. District Inspector, Karnal furnished inquiry report dated 30.04.2010 (Annexure P-1) holding the petitioner to be guilty of the charge. The Punishing Authority upon agreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer issued a show cause notice dated 12.05.2010 (Annexure P-2), whereby penalty of dismissal from service was contemplated. It is pleaded that the petitioner submitted a reply dated 18.05.2010 and the Punishment Authority passed impugned order dated 28.05.2010 (Annexure P-4) dismissing the petitioner from service. The petitioner preferred a statutory appeal and the Appellate Authority reduced the penalty from dismissal to stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect vide order dated 22.09.2010 (Annexure P-6). The petitioner thereafter filed a revision petition (Annexure P-7) before the Director General of Police. It has been specifically averred that instead of considering the revision petition filed by the petitioner, the Director General of Police, Haryana invoked the powers under Rule 16.28 (1) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to the State of Haryana) and issued show cause notice dated 06.06.2011 (Annexure P-8) as regards enhancement of punishment to that of dismissal from government service. Placed on record is a detailed reply dated 23.06.2011 (Annexure P-9) submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice dated 06.06.2011. Vide order dated 29.07.2011 (Annexure P-10), the Director General of Police, Haryana had enhanced the punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with permanent effect to that of dismissal from service. It is against such factual backdrop that the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the Inquiry Officer instead of appreciating the evidence led during the course of inquiry proceedings has held the petitioner guilty on the basis of a preliminary inquiry report, which was submitted at the back of the petitioner. It has been argued that such course of action was not permissible in the eyes of law. In support of such contention reliance has been placed upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narayan Dattatraya Ramteerthakar Vs. State of Maharashtra & others, 1997 AIR(SC) 2148 as also Gujarat High Court Bhagwanbbai M. Patel Vs. General Manager (Operation) Resume, State Bank of India, Gujarat, 2008 1 SLR 570. It has also been argued that the petitioner while posted at Police Station Nissing had been assigned the duties of a Computer Operator and as such, there was no occasion for him to have demanded any money from PW-3 Baljit Singh and PW-4 Bijinder Singh during the course of patrolling duty. It has been argued that the testimony of DW-1 Inpector Shamsher Singh in this regard had been totally ignored by the Inquiry Officer. While assailing the order dated 28.05.2010 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Punishing Authority i.e. Superintendent of Police, Karnal, it has been contended that the reply submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice has not been considered at all.