Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1740 (PNJ)

Des Raj v. State of Punjab & others

2012-12-04

TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA

body2012
Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.— (Oral) In terms of the order dated 27.06.2011 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Moga (Annexure P-6), punishment of stoppage of three annual increments on permanent basis was imposed upon the petitioner. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of punishment was dismissed in terms of order dated 13.01.2012 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ferozepur Range, Ferozepur. Thereafter, in a revision/second appeal preferred by the petitioner, the Inspector General of Police, Bathinda zone, Bathinda in terms of passing of order dated 29.08.2012 (Annexure P-10) has modified the order of punishment and has reduced the same to forfeiture of two years service on permanent basis for purposes of grant of increment. The instant writ petition has been filed impugning the aforementioned orders at annexures P-6, P-8 & P-10. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner had been placed under suspension vide order dated 15.10.2010 on account of having been charge sheeted wherein two articles of charge had been drawn up against the petitioner. The first article of charge was in relation to the petitioner allegedly having illicit relations with a lady and the second charge was pertaining to the driving of vehicle under the influence of liquor. In the departmental enquiry conducted against the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer had returned findings in terms of concluding that the petitioner was guilty of the second charge i. e. in relation to driving a vehicle in a drunken condition. But insofar as the second charge as regards the illicit relations with another woman is concerned, the same was held to be not proved. Agreeing with the findings returned by the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner had been served with a show cause notice wherein the penalty of stoppage of three annual increments with permanent effect had been contemplated. The Senior Superintendent of Police after having considered the reply submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice passed the impugned order dated 27.06.2011 (Annexure P-6). Even the statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner had been rejected in terms of the passing detailed speaking order dated 13.01.2012 (Anneuxure P-8) passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ferozepur Range, Ferozepur. The second appeal/revision has been partly accepted in terms of modifying the punishment and reducing the same to forfeiture of two years service instead of three years service as regards grant of increments. The second appeal/revision has been partly accepted in terms of modifying the punishment and reducing the same to forfeiture of two years service instead of three years service as regards grant of increments. Having heard counsel for the petitioner at length, I find the instant petition merits dismissal. The scope of judicial scrutiny in matter of imposition of punishment upon an employee is rather limited. The final orders dated 29.08.2012 (Annexure P-10) passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bathinda zone, Bathinda is in consequence to a regular departmental enquiry, issuance of show cause notice as also grant of opportunity of a personal hearing. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has not been able to point out any irregularity insofar as the conduct of the departmental enquiry against the petitioner is concerned. While examining the validity of the impugned orders, this Court in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would confine itself to the decision making process and not to the decision itself. This Court can not act as a Court of appeal so as to re-appraise and re-appreciate evidence. The petitioner, who is a member of disciplined force has admittedly been found guilty of driving of his vehicle in a drunken condition. I find that in terms of the impugned order dated 29.08.2012 passed by the Inspector General of Police, Bathinda Zone, Bathinda (Annexure P-10), a lenient view has already been taken in terms of partly accepting the second appeal/revision and thereby the punishment imposed by the Senior Superintendent of Police has been reduced to forfeiture of two years of service on permanent basis inasofar as the grant of increment is concerned. I find no infirmity in the impugned order dated 29.08.2012 (AnnexureP-10) and there is no basis that would warrant interference in the same. No merit. Dismissed.