SUSHEEL CHAND Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was appointed as Constable in respondent-department in the year 1984. He was promoted to the post of Head Constable in the month of July, 1990. The petitioner was despatched at 9.45 a.m. on 20.12.2004 vide daily diary report No.15 to take the custody of prisoner, Rajesh Kumar from Model Central Jail, Nahan and produce him before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat on 21.12.2004. The custody of the prisoner was taken on 20.12.2004 at 4.45 p.m. from the jail. The petitioner informed vide report No.46 police lines, Nahan at 11.35 p.m. on 20.12.2004 that the prisoner has escaped at 11.30 p.m. A case No.253 of 2004, dated 21.12.2004 under Section 224 of the Indian Penal Code was registered at Police Station, Nahan. Petitioner was put under suspension. Departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner/ police officials on 22.12.2004. The charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner, to which he filed reply. In his final report, dated 21.11.2005, the Inquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of dereliction and negligence of duty. The Superintendent of Police agreed with the inquiry report and served the petitioner with notice regarding the proposed punishment of forfeiture of three years of service vide order dated 26.11.2005. The petitioner submitted reply to the same. The disciplinary authority, i.e. Superintendent of Police, Nahan awarded the penalty of forfeiture of one year of service permanently. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Southern Range. He accepted the appeal partly and the penalty of one year's approved service on permanent basis was converted in the forfeiture of one year of service for the purpose of increment only. The petitioner had assailed this order by filing review petition before the Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh. The same was rejected by the Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh on 24.1.2007.

(2.) Mr. Tarlok Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the imposition of penalty is against the principles of law. He then contended that the penalty upon his client is disproportionate to the alleged mis-conduct.

(3.) Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has supported the impugned orders passed by the competent authority.