RANJIT SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI Ranjit Singh, petitioner herein was Deputy Superintendent of Police and posted as Area Commandant, Home Guards, Rajouri, when he was placed under suspension by the Inspector General of Police vide order No. 295 of 1969 dated 7 -10 -1969 for his having misused his official position and also grave misconduct. Subsequently under Govt. Order No. Home -504 (Police) of 1972 dated 2 -4 -1972, a departmental enquiry was ordered to be conducted against him and Shri M.M. Khajuria, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jammu, was appointed as enquiry officer. The enquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer, who submitted his findings holding the petitioner guilty and recommended that his annual increments be forfeited for a period of two years. The Govt. of Jammu and Kashmir, accepting the report of the enquiry officer imposed punishment upon the petitioner withholding his annual increments for a period of two years. The period of his suspension was treated as leave of whatever kind due to him. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing Govt. Order No. 464 (Police) of 1975 dated 2.8.1975 passed by respondent No. 1 and Order No. 295 of 1969 dated 7.10.1969, issued by respondent No. 2.

(2.) IT is contended by the petitioner that a false case regarding having his molesting one Manjit Kour was registered against him at Police Station, Poonch and after the completion of the investigation the challan was sent to government for obtaining sanction as required under section 197 Cr. P.C. but the department instead of initiating criminal proceedings against him recommended departmental enquiry with malafide intention. The inferences drawn by the enquiry officer against him were contrary to the evidence on record and it was based neither on legal nor on admissible evidence. The enquiry conducted was also not fair and impartial one and the enquiry officer also relied upon the statements recorded by the police or magistrate under Sec. 164 Cr. P.C. and treated them as substantial evidence which was not permissible under law. The mandatory provisions of rule 349 of the Police Rules, 1969, were also not complied with making whole proceedings illegal and unwarranted.

(3.) THE respondents in their objections have averred that the present writ petition challenging the finding s of fact on the basis of departmental enquiry, was not maintainable. A detailed enquiry was held by the enquiry officer and it was on the basis of the enquiry that the impugned orders were passed. In the peculiar circumstances of the case it was thought fit to hold a departmental enquiry instead of launching criminal proceedings. They have further denied the allegations of the petitioner regarding holding of enquiry against the rules.