ISHWAR CHANDER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Constable Ishwar Chander has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India against the State of Haryana and others, praying for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari and for the quashment of Annexures P-7, P-11 and P-13, by which the petitioner was punished with the punishment of the stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and the case set up by the petitioner is that in the year 1994 he was posted as ad-hoc Head Constable in M & PI, Gurgaon. On 2.4.1993, in village Khandauli on Delhi- Jaipur road there was a traffic jam and the petitioner alongwith other constables was charge-sheeted on the ground that he along with two others, referred to above, quarrelled with the drivers and gave beatings to them. As a result, those drivers put traffic jam which was got cleared with the intervention of Assistant Superintendent of Police, Gurgaon. This action on the part of the petitioner amounted to gross misconduct. On 26.8.1993, a letter was written by the Director General of Police, Haryana, to the Commandant, 4the Battalion, Haryana Armed Police, Madhuban and the Superintendent of Police, Faridabad and S.P. Rohtak vide which it was directed that a departmental action be taken against the petitioner and other constables and the matter be reported to the District Magistrate, Gurgaon. Before the receipt of the letter by the Incharge, 4the Battalion, the petitioner had already been transferred to District Yamunanagar where he joined on 8.6.1993. Thereafter, a departmental inquiry was ordered and it was handed over to A.S.P. Jagadhri and a formal charge-sheet was given on 1.7.1994 and the petitioner was charged with the allegations that on 2.4.1994 he misconducted himself with the drivers while posted in Mp staff at Gurgaon. The petitioner filed his written statement independently and he denied the allegations of the charge. The prosecution examined the witnesses. Two persons, namely Satpal and Abdul Shahid were exonerated, but the petitioner was awarded punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. The petitioner alleges that the departmental inquiry which was conducted against him was against the rules and contrary to the instructions. It was illegal. The charge sheet which was served upon the petitioner was vague, ineffective and the petitioner could not be tried. In the charge sheet it was specifically alleged by the department that petitioner allegedly committed the misconduct on 2.4.1994. On that date he was not even posted in the traffic and as such no such charge could be levelled against him. The challenge has been given by the petitioner to the Annexures P-7, P-11 and P-13, mainly on the ground that the charge sheet framed against him was defective, that the petitioner could not be punished, twice for the alleged act, his name was ordered to be removed from B-l list, thirdly, as the two persons, namely, Satpal and Abdul Shahid, had already been exonerated of the same allegations the petitioner could not be punished as such. Against the removal of the name of the petitioner from B-l list, he filed a civil writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court and a Division Bench vide order dated 7.10.1994 allowed the writ petition of the petitioner. The action on the part of the official respondents in declining the appeal against the order dated 22.8.1994 was illegal. Similarly, the order passed in revision on 20.1.1995 was also void and against the principles of natural justice.

(2.) The notice of the writ petition was given to the respondents No.1 to 4 who filed the written statement and denied the allegations. They have tried to justify the orders of punishment, appeal ads well as the revision. It was also stated by the respondents that the order of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect of the petitioner was fully justified and no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the charge against the petitioner was defective. In fact, the incident had taken place on 2.4.1993 and not on 2.4.1994 and the petitioner cannot be allowed to take the advantage of the wrong date of his charge.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana on behalf of the respondents and, with their assistance, I have gone through the records of this case.