PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above writ petition has been filed seeking for the relief in the nature of a direction to the fourth Respondent to register an FIR. in terms of the complaint filed by him in this proceeding as Annexure P-3 and as a consequence thereof to conduct re-investigation by entrusting the same to some other competent Police Officer under the supervision of a Senior Police Officer not below the rank of Inspector-General of Police after divesting the fourth Respondent from the case and also after declaring null and void investigation, if any, conducted by the fourth Respondent in the matter.

(2.) The Petitioner claims himself to be a citizen of India and asserts rights in him to seek for the relief, prayed for. In justification of the claim, he also states that he was working as press daftry in the Printing and Stationery Department of the State Government with effect from November, 1986 and thereafter is working as Book-Binder with effect from July 1991. Though the Petitioner also claims that there were no adverse entries before the joining of the third Respondent in office and the third Respondent has been vindictive towards the Petitioner and other employees without any reason and has been issuing adverse A.C.Rs. in a routine and mechanical manner every year. It is also stated that when the Petitioner made a verbal request to the third Respondent to decide his representation made against ACRs, instead of complying with the request the third Respondent passed an order suspending him by invoking the powers under Rule 10(1) of the Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules by an order dated 3.11.1997 and in the said order the third Respondent fixed the headquarter during the suspension period as H.P. Government Press (B-Block), Shimla-5, with a further stipulation that the Petitioner should not leave the headquarter without obtaining the prior permission of the head of the office. It is also claimed for the Petitioner that when in the evening the Petitioner sought for permission to leave for home, the third Respondent directed the Petitioner to spend the night in the Government Press and his request for a guilt was also turned down with a specific direction to the Chowkidar not to allow the Petitioner to leave the Press premises, as a consequence of which the Petitioner claims to have been compelled to sleep in the cold for the night with just a pullover on and caught cold the first night itself. The same treatment was said to have been meted out to him every day till November 6, 1997 when his relatives lodged a criminal complaint with Police Station, Dhalli and it is the Sub-Inspector concerned who finally traced and rescued the Petitioner from the alleged illegal confinement by the third Respondent in the Government Press premises. Thereupon, it is also stated that the Petitioner approached the fourth Respondent on 8.11.1997 at about 8.30 p.m. with a complaint in respect of the aforesaid alleged illegal confinement and attempt to murder but the fourth Respondent refused to register any FIR or complaint against the third Respondent and only placed the complaint on the record of case diary. The attempts of the Petitioner to get himself medically examined, it is claimed, could not succeed in the absence of any FIR. According to the Petitioner, the fourth Respondent called the Petitioner to the Police Station and requested him to withdraw his claim since he was unacle to take action against the Senior Himachal Administrative Service Officer (Respondent No. 3) and when he refused to withdraw the complaint the fourth Respondent forced him to sign a statement, which was pre-written and not read over to the Petitioner also. On the above factual averments, apart from alleging that Respondents 3 and 4 are hand in glove with each other and the fourth Respondent is exhibiting inimical attitude with no intention to make any impartial investigation, the Petitioner was constrained to approach this Court praying for the reliefs noticed supra.

(3.) So far as the third Respondent is concerned, he has meticulously explained the details as to how even prior to his joining the position, the Petitioner came to the adverse notice of the superiors resulting in adverse ACRs. His action in sending communications with abusive and intemperate language exhibit indiscipline, unbecoming of a public servant and the need arose for placing him under suspension by the order dated 3.11.1997. While denying the allegation of the Petitioner that he was confined or detained in B-Block of the Government Press even after the working hours and forced to stay even during night, it has been stated that the headquarters has been fixed in a routine manner in the prescribed form, which has relevance only for the office hours and such fixation became necessary for the reason that the actual day to day printing work is carried on in A-Block, B-Block being merely Administrative Office so as to prevent him in entering A-Block and create any mischief or obstruct work in A-Block. It was also stated by the third Respondent that the alleged complaint given to the police about the whereabouts of the Petitioner was a manipulated one and when the police came, he was found loitering as a free man and the Chowkidar as also the Home-Guard personnel have also denied the fact that the Petitioner ever remained in the Press building either in 'A' or 'B' Block on the days in question, as alleged by him. The third Respondent denied that he had at any time issued orders for the confinement of the Petitioner in the Press B-Block and has stated that wild allegations have been made to harm, humiliate, harass as well as defame the third Respondent with mala fide intention in view the administrative actions that the third Respondent was constrained to take to maintain discipline in the officer. Necessary supporting materials in support of such claims have also been filed.