JAI PAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is working as a Constable in Ist Battalion, Haryana Armed Police, Ambala, has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing order dated 30.9.2003 (Annexure P-5) passed by Commandant, Ist Battalion, Ambala City imposing a punishment of stoppage of two future annual increments with permanent effect on the basis of the regular departmental inquiry held against him and order dated 5.12.2005 (Annexure P-8) passed by Inspector General of Police, Haryana Armed Police, Madhuban confirming the order by exercising the powers of appellate authority.

(2.) The allegations against the petitioner in the departmental proceedings were that while posted at Police Post Mouli, District Panchkula on 28.3.2003 for law and order duty, he committed the act of misconduct and obsceneness by teasing school girls along with his associates C.Sukhdev Singh and Randeep Singh etc., which had let down the image of the department. F.I.R. 93 dated 28.3.2003 under Section 294 I.P.C. was registered at Police Station Raipur Rani, District Panchkula. 14 witnesses were examined. The petitioner was given an opportunity to examine 2 defence witnesses. After enabling him to file written defence, inquiry report dated 16.9.2003 was submitted holding the petitioner guilty of charges levelled against him. A show cause notice for imposition of penalty of dismissal from service was issued and after considering the reply to the show cause notice, instead of inflicting the punishment of dismissal, with an objective to give a chance for improvement to the petitioner, punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with permanent effect was inflicted on him.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been acquitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula vide judgment dated 14/3/2005 (Annexure P-7) and,therefore, the provisions of Rule 16.3 of the Punjab Police Rules ( for short 'the Rules') will be applicable. Learned counsel has further urged that the order of punishment has been passed without proper appreciation of evidence and wrongly recording that the petitioner has admitted the occurrence before D.S.P. Desh Bandhu during verification of the facts. He has further argued that the Punishing Authority has wrongly recorded in order dated 3.9.2003 (Annexure P-5) that the petitioner has admitted his misconduct and had assured that such misconduct will not be repeated in future and the petitioner had sought a chance for improvement.