SURESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition is directed against the inquiry report dated 13.1.2005 (P5) and consequential order passed by the Appellate Authority, dated 29.8.2005 (P-10) partially upholding the penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect to that extent. The petitioner has been working with the Haryana Police as Head Constable. He was to pay a Reverse Salami of Arms to a dignitary on the cremation ground at Yamunanagar as he was incharge of the Salami Guard. The charges emanated from irregularities and lapses in performing the duty of Salami Guard in his capacity as incharge. Accordingly, a charge sheet was issued and Shri Surender Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, was appointed as Enquiry Officer. He held a detailed inquiry and submitted his report to the punishing authority on 13.1.2005, holding that the petitioner was guilty of the charges. The competent authority i.e. Superintendent of Police issued to the petitioner a show cause notice asking him to reply the same within 15 days. The petitioner filed a detailed reply to the show cause notice. A specific objection was taken that he may not be held guilty. However, after considering the reply, the Superintendent of Police passed an order dated 15.2.2005 (P-8) imposing the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. However, on appeal the Inspector General of Police, Ambala Range, Ambala, reduced the punishment to stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. Thereafter the petitioner availed the remedy of revision and the Director General of Police dismissed the same by order dated 28.2.2006 (P-12).

(2.) Having heard the learned Counsel, perusing the detailed inquiry report, dated 13.1.2005 (P-5), we are of the considered view that the inquiry has been held entirely in accordance with the rules by following the principles of natural justice. We do not find any lapse on the part of the Enquiry Officer denying opportunity of hearing or showing that the principles of natural justice have not been followed.

(3.) A detailed perusal of the inquiry report shows that the petitioner was granted opportunity to cross-examine all the witnesses but despite opportunity given he has not cross-examined prosecution witnesses 1, 2 and 3. Therefore, we are unable to accept the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on the basis of the application dated 30.12.2004 (P-3) that opportunity to cross-examine prosecution witness No. 1 was not granted. There is always a presumption of correctness in favour of the official record and, therefore, the statement in the inquiry report that opportunity was granted to the petitioner to cross-examine prosecution witness No. 1 has to be accepted as correct.