SULTAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Departmental Inquiry dated 30.4.2009 (Annexure P-3), Show Cause Notice dated 14.5.2009 (Annexure P-4), order dated 16.6.2009 (Annexure P-6) passed by Superintendent of Police,Yamuna Nagar, whereby, five future annual increments of pay have been stopped with permanent effect, order dated 11.9.2009 (Annexure P-8) passed by Inspector General of Police, Ambala Range, Ambala Cantt, vide which, the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed as well as order dated 25.5.2010 (Annexure P-10) passed by Director General of Police, Haryana, vide which one future annual increment has been stopped with permanent effect.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as Assistant Sub Inspector at Police Station Farakpur, District Yamuna Nagar. A complaint was made by one Mukta against her husband and in laws for harassment on account of demand of dowry. On the basis of said complaint, FIR No. 86, dated 6.4.2008 under Sections 498-A, 406, 506 IPC was registered at Police Station Farakpur, District Yamuna Nagar. The petitioner was the Investigating Officer of the aforesaid case. Complainant- Mukta levelled allegations against the petitioner that the case was not investigated by the petitioner properly, dowry articles were also not recovered and he demanded bribe during investigation. On the basis of said complaint made by complainant-Mukta, departmental inquiry was initiated for not investigating the case of the complainant properly. The inquiry was conducted by Sh. Ashok Kumar, Deputy Superintendent of Police and the petitioner was charge-sheeted for not effecting recovery of dowry articles in the aforesaid FIR and for demanding and accepting money from the father of the complainant. The allegations of demand and receipt of any money from the father of the complainant could not be proved but the petitioner was held guilty for not effecting recovery of dowry articles. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner for dismissal of his services, to which, he filed reply. After considering the reply filed by the petitioner, a punishment of stoppage of five future annual increments with permanent effect was awarded to the petitioner vide order dated 16.6.2009. Aggrieved by aforesaid order of punishment, the petitioner filed an appeal but the same was also dismissed on 11.9.2009. Thereafter the petitioner filed revision petition before respondent No.2, which was partly allowed and order of stoppage of five future annual increments was modified into stoppage of one future annual increment with permanent effect vide order dated 25.5.2010. In the present petition, the petitioner has challenged departmental inquiry, show cause notice and order of stoppage of one annual increment with permanent effect by raising various arguments.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is contrary to the defence taken and reply to show cause notice has also not been taken into consideration. Learned counsel further submits that as per allegations in the complaint, the money was demanded from the father of the complainant but he was not examined. Neither demand nor acceptance of bribe was proved in the regular inquiry. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case, whereas, he has been acquitted by the trial Court. It is also the contention of learned counsel that all the proceedings initiated against the petitioner including punishment of stoppage of one future annual increment with permanent effect is liable to be set aside.