(1.) THE present writ petition is directed against the order dated 5.8.1992 (Annexure P -7) passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Gurgaon, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and upholding the order dated 10.9.1991 (Annexure P -5) passed by the Superintendent of Police, Faridabad, thereby stopping two future increments of the petitioner with cumulative effect. Brief facts of the case are that while serving in the respondent department, petitioner was deputed as Driver at government gypsy No. HR -29 -4644 on 30.11.1989. This fact is undisputed on record that the petitioner was not a qualified Driver, nor he was appointed as Constable Driver. The pleaded case of the petitioner in this regard was that he lodged his protest not to depute him as Driver, because he was not a qualified Driver and should not be posted for VIP duty. While coming back from his duty, the gypsy overturned and the persons inside the gypsy were also injured. Departmental enquiry was ordered by the Superintendent of Police, Faridabad -respondent No. 4. Charge sheet dated 22.3.1990 (Annexure P -1) was issued to the petitioner by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Faridabad. During the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer was changed and new Enquiry Officer again served charge sheet to the petitioner on 8.12.1990 vide Annexure P -2. Enquiry was conducted. As many as 11 witnesses were examined. Inquiry report dated 24.1.1991 (Annexure P -3) was submitted. Enquiry Officer held the petitioner as guilty while recording his conclusion that the petitioner caused the accident while driving rashly, thereby causing damage to the government vehicle. Based on the above said enquiry, show cause notice dated 29.7.1991 (Annexure P -4) was issued and consequently, the impugned punishment order dated 10.9.1991 (Annexure P -5) was passed by the Superintendent of Police, thereby stopping two future increments of the petitioner with permanent effect.
(2.) AGGRIEVED , petitioner filed his appeal dated 20.11.1991 (Annexure P -6), reiterating his earlier defence and also pointing out serious discrepancies in the enquiry report. However, the appeal filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Gurgaon, vide impugned order dated 5.8.1992 (Annexure P -7). Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner approached this Court by way of instant writ petition.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have not denied this fact in their written statement that the petitioner was not a qualified Driver, nor that he had been appointed as a Driver Constable. He next contended that although 11 PWs were examined, but none supported the charge levelled against the petitioner. In spite of that fact, the Enquiry Officer came to the wholly unwarranted conclusion that petitioner was guilty of rash driving. The most material fact that accident took place because of tyre burst, was not appreciated by either the Enquiry Officer, Punishing Authority or the Appellate Authority. The material evidence recorded by the prosecution witnesses themselves have not been appreciated. He further submits that PW -5 -Constable Ranjit Singh had deposed that office gypsy was in a good condition and speed was also not high. Nobody could be better witness than Constable Ranjit Singh, because he was sitting in that gypsy and suffered injuries in the accident. Similarly, the Ram Sarup, deposed that vehicle was being driven by the petitioner at a good speed. The Driver was in good condition and was driving the vehicle properly. PW -8 Om Parkash, Mechanic Haryana Roadways, proved the mechanical report as Ex. 8 -A. He reported that on inspection of the vehicle, it's steering, Tie -rod, brake, horn and left side tyre were found correct. Right side tyre was burst. Headlights and chasis were damaged. On asking by the petitioner, this witness deposed that gypsy overturned on the bursting of a tyre. PW -7, Manohar Lal, also deposed that vehicle was driven at a normal speed. The driver was not under the influence of liquor. He concluded by submitting that if the above said material facts are closely examined and appreciated, no person of prudent mind would have come to the conclusion as arrived at by the Enquiry Officer. Since the Punishing Authority as well as the Appellate Authority failed to appreciate the enquiry report in its entirety, the impugned orders were not sustainable. He prays for setting aside the impugned order by allowing the present writ petition.