Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 682 (HP)

RANDHIR SINGH v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2010-04-06

RAJIV SHARMA

body2010
JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, J.-A charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner on 7.10.1995. The gist of charge-sheet was that the petitioner under the influence of liquor went to the compound of the office of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rohroo and misbehaved with one Sh. Surmu Mal. He was medically examined and the Medico Legal Certificate (MLC) was issued. According to the MLC, petitioner had consumed alcohol. He filed reply to the charge-sheet on 30.10.1995. Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 4.11.1995. Petitioner was served with a show cause notice by the Disciplinary Authority on 21.11.1995. He filed reply to the show cause notice vide Annexure A 6. The Disciplinary Authority imposed penalty of stoppage of two increments with permanent effect. FIR was also registered against the petitioner under section 8 (1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. He was acquitted on 31.5.1997. 2. Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma has vehemently argued that since his client has been acquitted by the learned Special Judge on 31.5.1997, penalty could not be imposed upon him by the Disciplinary Authority. 3. Mr. Rajinder Dogra, learned Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that the charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner for creating ruckus by consuming liquor and threatening one Sh Surmu Mal under the influence of liquor. According to learned Additional Advocate General, charges levelled in the charge sheet in disciplinary proceedings and challan put up against him were different. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 5. Mr. Rajinder Dogra has taken the Court through charge-sheet. Petitioner under the influence of liquor misbehaved on 13.7.1994 with Surmu Mal. He has denied this charge in his reply. He was medically examined. Inquiry Officer has given a detailed report. Charges levelled against the petitioner stood duly proved. Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma has failed to point out any deficiency or shortcomings in the inquiry report. There is no violation of the principle of natural justice, as argued by Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma. 6. Penalty of withholding of two increments was imposed upon the petitioner with permanent effect by the Disciplinary Authority. He preferred the appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Southern Range). The same was dismissed by well reasons on 21.3.1998. Further appeal preferred by the petitioner was also rejected by the Director General of Police on 22.1.1999. 6. Penalty of withholding of two increments was imposed upon the petitioner with permanent effect by the Disciplinary Authority. He preferred the appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Southern Range). The same was dismissed by well reasons on 21.3.1998. Further appeal preferred by the petitioner was also rejected by the Director General of Police on 22.1.1999. Order passed by the Director General of Police is detailed order. The grounds raised by the petitioner before him have been taken into consideration. Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma has also argued that since his client has been acquitted by the Special Judge on 31.5.1997, punishment could not be imposed upon him under disciplinary proceedings. There is no substance in this submission. Charges levelled against petitioner in the charge-sheet and the challan put up against petitioner were different. Petitioner has misbehaved being a member of the discipline force. He had no occasion to go to the office of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rohroo after consuming liquor and abusing Sh. Surmu Mal. The fact that he had consumed alcohol was duly proved during the course of inquiry conducted by the Inquiry Officer. In MLC, it has come that petitioner had consumed alcohol on the date of incident. Director General of Police has taken into consideration judgment dated 31.5.1997 while rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner. The Judgment (G.M. Tank versus State of Gujarat and others, (2006) 5 SCC 446) cited by Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma is not applicable in the present case. In that case, charges in disciplinary proceedings and criminal proceedings were exactly the same. However, this is not the position in the present case. 7. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Southern Railway Officers Association and another versus Union of India and others, (2009) 9 SCC 24 have held that punishment can be imposed, despite acquittal in a criminal case. 8. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.