STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. JAGAT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two petitions are directed against the orders rendered by the learned H.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 561 of 1995 and O.A. No. 562 of 1995 on 20.6.2001 and 2.1.2002, respectively. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in these petitions, the same are being disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) THE facts in nutshell common to both the petitions are that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondents on the ground that they had taken one Ram Singh accused from the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dharamshala on September 3, 1992 and on the same evening when they brought the accused to District Jail, Dharamshala they were found drunk. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against them. The inquiry was conducted by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Kangra. The report was submitted to the disciplinary authority. The Inquiry Officer had concluded that the charge had been proved against the delinquents. The report was accepted by the Superintendent of Police, Kangra. He agreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and imposed a penalty of forfeiture of one year 'sservice and stoppage of one increment of the respondents on 16.2.1994. The Respondents preferred an appeal against the order dated 16.2.1994 to the Deputy Inspector General of Police. The appeal was rejected. They filed a revision before the Director General of Police. The Director General of Police came to the conclusion that the penalty imposed was not commensurate with the misconduct and issued a notice to the respondents asking them to show -cause why the penalty of dismissal from service be not imposed on them. They submitted their replies. The Director General of Police imposed the penalty of dismissal from service on the respondents. They approached the learned H.P. Administrative Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 561 of 1995 and O.A. No. 562 of 1995 against the order of their dismissal. The learned H.P. Administrative Tribunal allowed the original application No. 561 of 1995 on 20.6.2001 by a detailed order. The original application No. 562 of 1995 was also disposed of by the learned Tribunal on 2.1.2002 on the basis of the order dated 20.6.2001 rendered in O.A. No. 561 of 1995.

(3.) I have heard the parties and perused the record carefully. What emerges from the pleadings of the parties before the H.P. Administrative Tribunal is that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondents for their misconduct dated 30th November, 1991. The charges levelled against the respondents were that they had come drunk while escorting the accused Ram Singh from the Court of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dharamshala to District Jail. The inquiry was conducted. The report was furnished by the Additional Superintendent of Police to the Superintendent of Police. The Superintendent of Police by taking an overall view has passed a very appropriate order whereby he only imposed a penalty of forfeiture of one year 'sservice and stoppage of one increment of the respondents. We are convinced that this penalty commensurate with the misconduct of the respondents. The petitioners have not placed any material on record to suggest that the respondents were ever proceeded earlier against departmentally for misconduct. The appellate authority did not change the order passed by the Superintendent of Police, Kangra. It was only the Director General of Police who in revision preferred by the respondents has come to the conclusion that the penalty imposed by the Superintendent of Police did not commensurate with the alleged misconduct. The Director General of Police after issuing notice to the respondents had imposed the penalty of dismissal upon the respondents. The H.P. Administrative Tribunal had come to just conclusion that the extreme penalty of dismissal could not be imposed upon the respondents. The penalty as imposed by the Superintendent of Police according to us commensurate with the misconduct. The Director General of Police was bound to take into consideration the reply filed by the respondents to the show - cause notice whereby the penalty of dismissal from service was proposed.