KAPOOR CHAND BHAGAT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who was working as Inspector in the Police Department, has called in question order dated 22.7.2000 passed by the Dy.Inspector General of Police SSG HQr. Srinagar whereby a punishment of withholding of an increment for a period of one year from the date it was due next has been imposed upon him.

(2.) THE petitioner was working as Inspector SSG Srinagar. Vide order dated 26.8.1998 his transfer stood ordered to Traffic Wing of J&K Police. As a part of in -service training exercise, joint trip of NSG/SSG staff to Pahlgam on 1.8.1998 was ordered. Sh.M.A.Anjum,IPS, SSP SSG HQRs with responsibility to arrange for the trip detailed the petitioner to supervise the purchase of food items from the market and proceed to Pahalgam at 0630 hours on 1.8.1998 as Incharge Ist Adm.party for ensuring adm.arrangements at Pahalgam. The directions in this regard were conveyed to the petitioner on 31.7.1998 through Lines Officer. The petitioner refused to perform the said duty. Later constable Driver Ram Parshad No. 638 -K was deputed to the residence of the petitioner vide DD report No. 18 dated 31.7.98 for reinforming him regarding his duty. Said constable Ram Parshad reported back in SSG Lines and informed the Lines Officer that the petitioner had refused to perform the duty assigned to him by the then senior officer. Accordingly report was entered in DD vide No. 19 dated 31.7.98 and consequently another officer was detailed to do the same duty which had been assigned to the petitioner. On 01.8.1998 SSP, SSG HQRs. Alongwith other officers came to SSG Lines/Control Room at 0830 hour sand supervised the move arrangements and remained present there till 0945 hours but till that time the petitioner had not reported for duty. Later on he came to SSG Lines at 11000 hours and entered his departure report from SSG in view of his transfer to Traffic wing vide DD report dated 23.1.1998 mentioning the time of the report as 0735 hours. He thus allegedly falsified the report with reference to timing. The petitioner, though his order for transfer received in SSG had not been relieved for want of substitute and stood informed by the Senior officers that he would be relieved only after his reliever reports in the lines but the petitioner adopted the departure report from SSG Lines without having been formally relieved at a time when he had refused to obey lawful orders for proceeding alongwith contingent to Pahalgam.

(3.) ON the aforesaid allegations the petitioner was placed under suspension by the SSP SSG HQr vide DD report No. 7 dated 2.8.98 confirmed vide order No. 147 of 1998 dated 4.8.98.The petitioner then reported back in SSG Lines under orders of IGP Traffic. Then SSP SSG initiated departmental enquiry against the petitioner. The enquiry was conducted by SSP Sh.M.A.Anjum who submitted his enquiry report to DIG SSG vide letter No. 237 dated 22.7.1999. DIG SSG on coming to the conclusion that the enquiry had not been conducted by following the procedure laid down under J&K Police Manual, ordered denovo enquiry by SSP P.R.Manhas. Summary of allegations was served upon the petitioner and statements of the witnesses were recorded and on finding that the allegations had been substantiated, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner and he was called upon to furnish his reply to the charges. The petitioner submitted his reply. After the completion of enquiry by SSP SSG the Inquiry Officer submitted his report to DIG SSG HQr. who was the disciplinary authority of the petitioner. The disciplinary authority after examining the record of the enquiry and the reply of the petitioner came to the conclusion that the charges leveled against the petitioner stood proved beyond any iota of doubt and accordingly accepted the finding arrived at by the Inquiry Officer and by order impugned dated 22.7.2000 imposed the aforesaid punishment upon the petitioner.