JAIPAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a civil writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dtd. 15/5/2020 (Annexure P-7) vide which the Superintendent of Police, Sonipat, has initiated the departmental enquiry against the petitioner. Challenge is also to the charge sheet dtd. 16/5/2020 (Annexure P-9).

(2.) A perusal of the order dtd. 15/5/2020 (Annexure P-7) would show that the departmental enquiry had been initiated against the petitioner vide order dtd. 15/5/2020 by the Superintendent of Police, Sonipat wherein it had been mentioned that after obtaining the report of the DSP, Sonipat, it had been found that two FIRs i.e., FIR no.197 dtd. 5/5/2020 under Ss. 188, 380, 409, 457, 120-B IPC, Sec. 61/1/14 Excise Act and Sec. 7 PC Act and FIR no.204 dtd. 8/5/2020 under Ss. 188, 218, 420, 120B IPC, Sec. 61/1/14 Excise Act and Sec. 7 PC Act had been registered against the petitioner at Police Station Kharkhoda and 11 investigation files were in the custody of the petitioner and the petitioner had willfully absented himself without any permission, leave, intimation from his duty continuously w.e.f. 8/5/2020 and the absence of the petitioner was recorded in the Roznamcha of Police Station Kharkhoda vide GD Request no.35 dtd. 8/5/2020 at 05:56 PM. It had been observed that the petitioner had shown gravest negligence and indiscipline in performing his duty and accordingly, departmental proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner and the DSP, Gohana had been appointed as enquiry officer in this regard. Charge sheet (Annexure P-9) also recorded the fact that after registration of the two FIRs, the petitioner had absented himself from duty without any permission, leave or information and thus, showed grave negligence and indiscipline in his duty.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the said proceedings solely on the ground that other departmental proceedings have also been initiated against the petitioner on the same allegations and that multiple enquiries on the same allegations cannot be initiated against the petitioner.