BALJEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of orders passed by departmental authorities whereby he has been awarded punishment of forfeiture of three increments with permanent effect.

(2.) The petitioner joined Police Force as Constable on 14/2/1979. He was promoted from time to time. In 2009, the respondent initiated departmental inquiry against him alleging that he remained absent from duty from 26/2/2010 to 29/5/2010 (91 days). The Inquiry Officer found him guilty of alleged misconduct. The disciplinary authority vide order dtd. 4/7/2011 awarded him punishment of forfeiture of one increment with permanent effect besides declaring absence period dies non. He preferred an appeal which came to be dismissed by Appellate Authority. It is apt to notice here that Appellate Authority exercising its power under Rule 16.28 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to State of Haryana) (in short 'PPR') issued him show cause notice proposing punishment of stoppage of five increments with permanent effect. The said authority vide order dtd. 25/12/2011 enhanced punishment from stoppage of one increment to three increments. He preferred appeal which came to be dismissed vide order dtd. 9/10/2012 passed by Director General of Police.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that punishment awarded by authorities is disproportionate to alleged misconduct. The disciplinary authority awarded punishment of stoppage of one increment which without reason was enhanced to three increments by IGP. The petitioner filed reply to notice issued by IGP and appeared for personal hearing. IGP agreed with his submissions still enhanced punishment.