KULJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner joined the Police Department as a Constable on 24/4/1980 and got promotions as Head Constable and Assistant Sub Inspector on 1/6/1990 and 23/7/2006, respectively. On 29/9/2010, the petitioner was charge sheeted by the Commandant, 1st IRBn, Bangarh for misconduct and dereliction of duties. The allegations against the petitioner were that he spent two days more time than required in discharge of duties, i.e. for making payment to one Bhim Sain, retired Cook and the recruits undergoing training at Jangal Beri and that he met one Babita Tandon, Food Inspector, who was booked in a case of corruption and was brought by the investigating team of SV and ACB before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharamshala, H.P., in connection with her bail.

(2.) However, as per the petitioner, on 5/4/2009, he disbursed the salary of ex servicemen recruits at 4th IRBn, Jangal Beri, Hamirpur and then proceeded to Village Chhatter for making payment to Bhim Sain, retired Cook. Since Bhim Sain was stated to have gone to Dharamshala in connection with his treatment, therefore, the petitioner has requested his family members to inform him to stay at Dharamshala and collect the payment there on the next day. The petitioner also offered to give his building on rent to Himachal Pradesh Institute of Police Studies (HPIPS) and for that purpose, he was directed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, HPIPS to visit his office to supply the relevant documents/revenue papers and also to complete the necessary formalities for renting out his building, qua which, prior permission had already been obtained by him. The petitioner had also gone to the Court at Dharamshala to meet his lawyer in connection with some pending litigation and incidentally, he met Babita Tandon there. However, some media person clicked photograph, when the petitioner was talking with his lawyer, who was also the lawyer for Babita Tandon and published the same in the newspaper.

(3.) Thereafter, preliminary inquiry was conducted against the petitioner, in which, Inquiry Officer came to the conclusion that there is nothing to establish that the petitioner in any way has helped Babita Tandon in getting the bail. However, the Disciplinary Authority did not agree with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and vide letter dtd. 31/1/2011 sought specific findings on the following points: