JOGA SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner vide Annexure A-7. The copy of the same was received by the petitioner on 28.12.1992. He filed reply to the same vide Annexure A-8. The Inquiry Officer submitted the report to the Disciplinary Authority dated 9.1.1993. Thereafter, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority on 14.1.1993. Petitioner filed detailed reply to the same vide Annexure A-10. Petitioner has specifically taken the ground that in his case, Rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules has not been followed. The Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of forfeiture of five years' service upon the petitioner permanently vide order dated 30.1.1993. Petitioner preferred an appeal before the D.I.G. Police (Northern Range). He dismissed the same on 20.10.1993. Petitioner preferred second appeal before the Appellate Authority. The same was rejected on 25.6.1994. Mr. Subhash Sharma has strenuously argued that in the instant case, it was incumbent upon the respondent to follow Rule 16.38 of Punjab Police Rules, as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh. He has also argued that the Disciplinary Authority, without supplying the copy of the inquiry report to the petitioner to enable him to make a representation against the same, had already come to the conclusion that the petitioner should be dismissed from service. He has further argued that the order whereby the penalty has been imposed upon the petitioner is neither detailed nor a speaking order.

(2.) Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General has vehemently argued that the inquiry has been initiated and conducted strictly in accordance with law. He has further argued that the orders passed by the Appellate Authority dated 20.10.1993 and 25.6.1994 are speaking orders.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings meticulously.