Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 713 (HP)

Dharam Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2012-10-12

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2012
Judgment Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J.: 1. The complaint herein is that irrespective of the inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority having exonerated the petitioner from the charge(s) levelled against him, the action of the 2nd respondent, i.e. setting aside and quashing the inquiry report and the order passed by the disciplinary authority, the 3rd respondent as well as appointing Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Nalagarh as Inquiry Officer for conducting the inquiry afresh against the petitioner vide impugned order annexure P-11 in the exercise of so called powers vested in him under Rule 16.28 of the Punjab Police Rules, is not only illegal, arbitrary, whimsical and even against all canons of the principles of natural justice as well as unknown in the service jurisprudence, hence, the present writ petition for grant of the following reliefs:- “ i) That a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued quashing the impugned Office Order dated 13.7.2011 (Annexure P-6) whereby the promotion of the petitioner has been withdrawn, impugned Office Order dated 16.3.2012 (Annexure P-11) whereby second enquiry has been ordered on the same set of allegations and charge sheet dated 10.5.2012 (Annexure P-12). ii) That the writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued directing the respondents to promote the petitioner from 18.3.2011 with all consequential benefits. iii) That the writ in the nature of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued restraining the respondents to conduct second enquiry on the same set of allegations.” 2. In the given facts and circumstances of this case, the moot questions arising for determination are as to whether the 2nd respondent, no doubt, Director General of Police, is competent to quash the order passed by the disciplinary authority-3rd respondent, accepting thereby the inquiry report and exonerating the petitioner from the charge(s) against him and is competent to order fresh inquiry on the same charge(s) by appointing another Inquiry Officer. 3. 3. As is apparent from the impugned order, Annexure P-11, the 2nd respondent while exercising the powers under Rule 16.28 of the Punjab Police Rules, has quashed the order Annexure P-10, dated 30.11.2011 whereby the Superintendent of Police, District Mandi, the 3rd respondent being disciplinary authority had accepted the inquiry report Annexure P-9 and exonerated the petitioner from the charges levelled against him, that too, when the said respondent was not seized of any appeal or revision etc. against the order Annexure P-10, supra and rather the representation, Annexure P-7 against the order dated 12.7.2011, Annexure P-6 withdrawing thereby the order of promotion of the petitioner already issued by the Inspector General of Place (Southern Range) vide order No.A.2/Estt./List-F/2010-11-2901, dated 21.3.2011 making a request thereby to withdraw the same keeping in view the fact that he was already promoted and had joined duty also as an Inspector. It is during the course of consideration of representation, Annexure P-7, supra, vide impugned order Annexure P-11 the 2nd respondent has not only rejected the same, but also quashed the order Annexure P-10 passed by the disciplinary authority exonerating thereby the petitioner from the charge(s) framed against him. The relevant portion of the impugned order is extracted here as under:- “In order to examine the representation of SI Dharam Singh for his promoting to the rank of Inspector I have gone through the enquiry report which reveals that the enquiry against SI Dharam Singh has been conducted in a slip shod manner. The Enquiry Officer issued the summary of allegations and recorded the statements of PWs Vipin Jain and K.D. Khan and on the basis of these statements and reply submitted by SI Dharam Singh the enquiry officer submitted his report holding that the charges against the said SI cold not be proved. As per the recommendations of the SV & ACB, which are on the departmental enquiry file, the case was not properly investigated by the delinquent officials and recommended departmental action against them. There is nothing on record of the departmental enquiry to show that the investigation file of case of aforesaid FIR was ever summoned or examined by the E.O. From the perusal of enquiry it is evident that the Enquiry Officer has acted in a manner only to save SI Dharam Singh. There is nothing on record of the departmental enquiry to show that the investigation file of case of aforesaid FIR was ever summoned or examined by the E.O. From the perusal of enquiry it is evident that the Enquiry Officer has acted in a manner only to save SI Dharam Singh. The Superintendent of Police has also not applied his mind while passing the order dated 30.11.2011 exonerating the delinquent of the charges. In view of the above, I do not agree with the findings of the enquiry officer. Therefore, in exercise of powers vested in me under Rule 16.28 of Punjab Police Rules as applicable to H.P., the order dated 30.11.2011 passed by SP Mandi exonerating SI Dharam Singh on the basis of aforesaid enquiry is set aside and quashed. It is further ordered that the enquiry against SI Dharam Singh be conducted afresh by SDPO Nalagarh and report be submitted to the disciplinary authority and the undersigned in due course within 3 months. The representation of SI Dharam Singh is accordingly rejected.” 4. As noticed supra, since the order Annexure P-10 has been quashed and fresh enquiry ordered to be initiated against the petitioner while exercising the so called powers vested in him (2nd respondent) under Rule 16.28 of the Punjab Police Rules, therefore, at the very outset, it is desirable to extract the said rule, which reads as follows:- “16.28. Powers to review proceedings----(1) The Inspector-General, a Deputy Inspector- General, and a Superintendent of Police may call for the records of awards made by their subordinates and confirm, enhance, modify or annul the same, or make further investigation or direct such to be made before passing orders. (2) If an award of dismissal is annulled, the officer annulling it shall state whether it is to be regarded as suspension followed by reinstatement, or not. The order should also state whether services previous to dismissal should count for pension or not. (2) If an award of dismissal is annulled, the officer annulling it shall state whether it is to be regarded as suspension followed by reinstatement, or not. The order should also state whether services previous to dismissal should count for pension or not. (3) In all cases in which officers propose to enhance an award they shall, before passing final orders, give the defaulter concerned and opportunity of showing cause, either personally or in writing, why his punishment should not be enhanced.” The plain reading of the Rule, ibid, amply demonstrates that the Inspector General, Deputy Inspector General or Superintendent of Police, as the case may be, alone may call for the records only in respect of the cases pertaining to award of punishment against any delinquent and may confirm, enhance, modify or annul the same. Where further investigation is required, they may pass appropriate orders in that behalf. The power to review vested under the Rules ibid in those cases where a delinquent has been exonerated from the charge(s) like the present one, is however highly doubtful. 5. The introduction hereinabove now takes this Court to the factual matrix qua which much controversy is not there because the petitioner being eligible for being considered for promotion to the post of Inspector, was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee in its meeting held on 14.6.2010 and on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee was brought on list-F on 6.7.2010 and recommended for promotion as Inspector vide office order Annexure P-1, in which his name is at Sr. No.8. Consequently, the petitioner has submitted the joining report as Inspector on 19.4.2011 in District Mandi. After a few days of his promotion as Inspector, the 3rd respondent vide office order dated 29.4.2011, Annexure P-2 has ordered to conduct departmental inquiry on the charges of corruption against him and the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Sunder Nagar was appointed as Inquiry Officer. Consequently, he was served with a charge-sheet dated 31.5.2011 (Annexure P-3), to which he submitted reply, Annexure P-4. The same did not find favour with the disciplinary authority. In the meanwhile, through W.T. message, dated 12.7.2011, Annexure P-6, the 2nd respondent had withdrawn the order of promotion of the petitioner issued on 21.3.2011 by the Inspector General of Police (Southern Range) Mandi consequent upon the order Annexure P-1. The same did not find favour with the disciplinary authority. In the meanwhile, through W.T. message, dated 12.7.2011, Annexure P-6, the 2nd respondent had withdrawn the order of promotion of the petitioner issued on 21.3.2011 by the Inspector General of Police (Southern Range) Mandi consequent upon the order Annexure P-1. The petitioner, no doubt, made representation, Annexure P-7 with the prayer to withdraw the order Annexure P-6 and allow him to continue as Inspector on his promotion, against which post he had already submitted his joining report, however, unsuccessfully because before any order was passed by the nd respondent on his representation, the inquiry officer had concluded the inquiry vide inquiry report Annexure P-9. The inquiry report was submitted to the disciplinary authority, i.e. the 3rd respondent and a copy thereof forwarded to the nd respondent also. The disciplinary authority-3rd respondent had accepted the inquiry report and exonerated the petitioner from the charges framed against him vide order Annexure P-10, however, the 2nd respondent while considering the representation, Annexure P-7 aforesaid and also the report submitted by the inquiry officer has not only rejected the representation of the petitioner and quashed the inquiry report as well as order Annexure P-10 issued by the rd respondent, but also directed the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Nalagarh, District Solan to conduct the inquiry afresh against the petitioner and submit report to the disciplinary authority and also the said respondent, within three months. 6. Consequent upon the aforesaid order passed by nd respondent, the inquiry officer (Sub Divisional Police Officer, Nalagarh) has now framed the charge-sheet afresh against the petitioner vide charge-sheet, Annexure P-12. This Court vide interim order dated 14.6.2012, which reads as follows, has however stayed further proceedings in the matter: “Notice. There will be a stay of further proceedings pursuant to Annexure P-11, dated 16.3.2012 and Annexure P-12, charge-sheet dated 10.5.2012. Reply within a month. Post on 9th July, 2012.” 7. The respondents when put to notice, have contested the writ petition. Their stand, as emerges from the perusal of the reply, in a nut shell, reads as follows:- “Para – 4. That in reply to this para it is submitted that the recommendations of eligible Sub Inspectors for admission of their names on promotion list ‘F’ vide communication dated 8.12.2009. The recommendations were considered by the DPC in its meeting held on 14.6.2010 & 21.6.2010. That in reply to this para it is submitted that the recommendations of eligible Sub Inspectors for admission of their names on promotion list ‘F’ vide communication dated 8.12.2009. The recommendations were considered by the DPC in its meeting held on 14.6.2010 & 21.6.2010. The name of the petitioner was also recommended by the Inspector General of Police, Southern Range. As per the recommendations of the I.G.P., S.R., Shimla the petitioner was not facing any departmental enquiry or vigilance case. Thus the petitioner was found fit by the DPC and his name was recommended for bringing his name of lit ‘F’ and his name was brought on the said list vide memo dated 6.7.2010. Subsequently while making promotion from the said list the concerned Superintendents of Police were asked vide communication dated 10.2.2011 to intimate whether there was anything adverse against the incumbents. The Superintendent of Police, Police District Baddi intimated that there was nothing adverse against the petitioner. In this background the name of the petitioner was approved for promotion to the rank of Inspector and posted in Mandi District. As is evident from the perusal of Annexure P-1 condition was laid down in the promotion order that the promotions are subject to the condition that there is nothing adverse against them which could render them unsuitable for promotion. Formal orders in this behalf were to be issued by the Range Inspector General of Police. Accordingly formal promotion order in respect of the petitioner was issued by the Inspector General of Police, Southern Range 21.3.2011 subject to condition that there is nothing adverse against him which could render him unsuitable for promotion. Para – 6. That in reply to this para it is submitted that in order to put the facts straight before this Hon’ble Court it is submitted that a case FIR No.18/08 dated 27.1.2008 u/s 454, 380 IPC registered in the said Police Station at the instance of one Shri Vipin Jain. The petitioner at the relevant time was posted as Addl. SHO PS Nalagarh. During investigation of the case accused were arrested and stolen property were recovered. After recovery of ornaments the then SHO Nalagarh asked the complainant Shri Vipin Jain to do some “Sewa Pani” of the officials namely the petitioner and HC Het Ram. The petitioner at the relevant time was posted as Addl. SHO PS Nalagarh. During investigation of the case accused were arrested and stolen property were recovered. After recovery of ornaments the then SHO Nalagarh asked the complainant Shri Vipin Jain to do some “Sewa Pani” of the officials namely the petitioner and HC Het Ram. On this the complainant gave Rs.15000/-, 5,000/- and 3,000/- to K.D. Khan, the then SHO, the petitioner and HC Het Ram respectively. A complaint was made by said Vipin Jain to State Vigilance & Anti Corruption Bureau (SV & AC Bureau). The complaint was probed into by the SV & AC Bureau. It was found that the investigation of the case was not done properly and recommended departmental enquiry against them. The copy of letter from the SV & AC Bureau alongwith enquiry report is appended as Annexure R-1. As is evident from the perusal of Annexure R-1 there are serious allegations against the petitioner and other delinquents. Accordingly the replying respondent passed the order for holding the departmental enquiry on 14.2.2011 as per the extract of noting sheet appended as Annexure R-2. However, inadvertently the office forwarded the matter to SP Solan instead of SP Baddi vide letter dated 19.2.2011. The matter for initiation of departmental enquiry remained pending with SP Baddi. In the meanwhile the promotion process was completed without bringing the facts to the notice of higher authorities. Though there was nothing against the petitioner on 14.6.2010 and 21.10.2010 when the DPC was held yet subsequently before making the actual promotion there were serious allegations against him which are to be enquired into. Para – 11. That in reply to this para it is submitted that the enquiry file was examined by the replying respondent while considering the case of the petitioner. It was found that the enquiry had been concluded in a slip shod manner. The enquiry officer issued summary of allegations and recorded the statements of PWs Vipin Jain and K.D. Khan (delinquent himself) and on the basis of the statements of PWs and reply to summary of allegations, the enquiry officer submitted his findings holding that the charges are not proved. It is pertinent to point out here that the summary of allegations had not been prepared in accordance with the observations of SV & AC Bureau and no formal charge sheet was prepared. It is pertinent to point out here that the summary of allegations had not been prepared in accordance with the observations of SV & AC Bureau and no formal charge sheet was prepared. The Enquiry officer did not examine the investigation file of the criminal case. Rather the E.O. acted to save the petitioner. Keeping in view these facts the replying respondent had ordered to hold the enquiry afresh. It is not out of place to submit here that another departmental enquiry has been ordered on 1.3.2012 against the petitioner for violation of provisions laid down in Section 174/176 Cr.P.C. while conducting inquest proceedings into the death of one Smt. Tanu on the recommendations of CBI. 8. It is seen that the petitioner has been made to suffer in the matter of his promotion on two counts, firstly, improper investigation of the case FIR No.18/2008, Police Station Nalagarh while posted as Additional SHO for reward, i.e. receipt of `5,000/- as bribe and, secondly, during the course of departmental inquiry conducted against him, the inquiry officer did not frame all the charges properly and conducted the proceedings in a slip shod manner leading to quashing the inquiry report and the order whereby the disciplinary authority accepted the said report and exonerated the petitioner from the charges framed against him. 9. What are the charges against the petitioner, have first to be seen. The first charge-sheet served upon him by the inquiry officer, the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Sunder Nagar is dated 31.5.2011 (Annexure P-3). The substance of the allegations against him is that the then SHO, Police Station, Nalagarh, Shri K.D. Khan had told the complainant in case FIR No.18/2008 that Shri Dharam Singh, Sub Inspector-Addl. SHO (petitioner) and H.C. Het Ram could trace out the stolen articles by putting lot of efforts and hard labour. Therefore, he should reward (do Sewa Pani) them and on this, the complainant paid `15,000/- to Shri K.D. Khan, SHO, `5,000/- to the petitioner and `3,000/- to Head Constable Het Ram. On the complaint later on made by the complainant to State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Solan it transpired during the course of inquiry that though the petitioner remained associated in the investigation of the case F.I.R. No.18/2008 throughout with Shri K.D. Khan, the then SHO, however, did not investigate the same properly. On the complaint later on made by the complainant to State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Solan it transpired during the course of inquiry that though the petitioner remained associated in the investigation of the case F.I.R. No.18/2008 throughout with Shri K.D. Khan, the then SHO, however, did not investigate the same properly. The alleged deeds and acts of the petitioner have posed a question mark on his honesty besides maligning the reputation of the Police Department. 10. If coming to the reply, Annexure P-4, the only role of the petitioner during the course of investigation conducted in the above said case is the production of accused in the Court and after obtaining their remand again produced before the SHO. No other and further investigation has been conducted by him in that case. The statement of Shri Vipin Jain, complainant in FIR No.18/2008, Police Station, Nalagarh recorded by the Inquiry Officer, SDPO, Sunder Nagar demonstrates that a sum of `50,000/- was paid by him to Shri K.D. Khan, the then SHO, Police Station, Nalagarh on the pretext that the same was required on account of the charges likely to be incurred upon during his visit to Ludhiana in connection with recovery of the stolen articles. He is the only witness associated by the Inquiry Officer during the course of inquiry conducted in this matter because Rajesh Kumar Jain, another witness to the payment of money, allegedly bribe, to the petitioner was not available being hospitalized and under treatment in some hospital at Ludhiana, as has come in the end of Annexure P-5, the statement of Shri Vipin Jain, aforesaid. 11. As the inquiry report, Annexure P-9 demonstrates and as the complainant, Sh. Vipin Jain disclosed before the Inquiry Officer, the role of the petitioner in case F.I.R. No.18/2008 is to the extent of production of accused persons before the Court for the purpose of obtaining remand and witnessing recovery of the stolen articles at Nalagarh and taking into possession the documents of Alto Car, purchased from Worklay Automobile, Chandigarh and made arrest under Section 120-B IPC. The stolen articles (jewellry) were handed over to complainant Shri Vipin Jain as per order of the Court. 12. The stolen articles (jewellry) were handed over to complainant Shri Vipin Jain as per order of the Court. 12. In view of the material as has come on record, the inquiry officer did not find any effective role of the petitioner nor he received any bribe (money) from the complainant and as such had exonerated him. The inquiry report has even been accepted by the disciplinary authority, Superintendent of Police, Mandi-3rd respondent also vide Annexure P-10. 13. Be it stated here that the inquiry has not been conducted in accordance with the procedure prescribed under CCS(CCA) Rules. The inquiry seems to have been conducted in the manner as provided under Rule 16.24 of Punjab Police Rules, which reads as under:- “16.24. Procedure in departmental enquiries:- (1) The following procedure shall be followed in departmental enquiries: (i) Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (ii) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (iii) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (iv) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (v) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (vi) At the conclusion of the defence evidence or, if the enquiring officer so directs, at any earlier stage following the framing of a charge, the accused shall be required to state his own answer to the charge. He may be permitted to file a written statement and may be given time, not exceeding one week, for its preparation, but shall be bound to make an oral statement in answer to all questions which the enquiring officer may see fit to put to him, arising out of the charge, the recorded evidence, or his own written statement. (vii) The enquiring officer shall be proceed to pass orders of acquittal or punishment, if empowered to do so, or to forward the case with his finding and recommendations to an officer having the necessary powers. Whenever the officer passing the orders of punishment proposes to take into consideration the adverse entries on the previous record of the accused police officer, he shall provide reasonable opportunity to the defaulter to defend himself; and a copy or at least a gist of those entries shall be conveyed to the defaulter and he shall be asked to give such explanation as he may deem fit. The explanation furnished by the defaulter shall be taken in to account by the officer before passing orders in the case. 14. The explanation furnished by the defaulter shall be taken in to account by the officer before passing orders in the case. 14. No doubt, the inquiry officer has not taken into consideration the record, if any, available with the State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Solan, which allegedly conducted an inquiry into the allegations of bribe taken by the petitioner from Shri Vipin Jain, complainant in case FIR No.18/2008, Police Station, Nalagarh and on this score, it is stated that the inquiry officer has conducted the inquiry in a slip shod manner and that the charges were also not framed properly. The charges now framed against the petitioner are as per the charge-sheet, Annexure P-12. The same are verbatim as in the earlier charge-sheet, Annexure P-3 except for at the time of taking into possession the documents of Alto Car from Worklay Automobile, Chandigarh and arrest of Shalu Walia, in whose name that vehicle was purchased neither the accused Shalu Walia was interrogated properly nor the expert opinion qua the documents recovered from Workley Automobile, Chandigarh and taken into possession, was obtained and also that as per the inquiry conducted by State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Solan, he did not conduct the investigation properly and received a sum of `5,000/- from complainant, Shri Vipin Jain in the presence of his brother Rakesh Kumar Jain. Be that as it may. But, this Court is of the considered opinion that the 2nd respondent, Director General of Police, could have not quashed the inquiry report nor the order Annexure P-10 whereby the petitioner was exonerated by the disciplinary authority-3rd respondent, that too, behind the back of the petitioner and rather should have left the matter open for being considered by the disciplinary authority, the Superintendent of Police, Mandird respondent to reconsider the same had he not been satisfied with the tone and tenor in which the inquiry in this matter was conducted by SDPO, Sunder Nagar. In case additional charge(s) is required to be framed, in that event also it is the disciplinary authority who alone could have applied its mind and ordered de-novo inquiry. In case additional charge(s) is required to be framed, in that event also it is the disciplinary authority who alone could have applied its mind and ordered de-novo inquiry. So far as the nd respondent is concerned, neither Rule 16.28 of Punjab Police Rules, supra, nor under any other law, he is competent to have exercised the power to quash the inquiry report and also the order of the disciplinary authority in the manner as the said respondent did in the present case. As a matter of fact, Rule 16.28, ibid, deals with those cases where on the basis of the departmental inquiry conducted against the delinquent, he is held guilty and the penalty imposed upon him. Those cases where the charge(s) against the delinquent(s) are not established and he rather is exonerated are not covered under the Rule, ibid. Thus, the 2nd respondent had no occasion to have quashed the inquiry report, Annexure P-9 and order passed by the disciplinary authority, Annexure P-10 exonerating thereby the petitioner nor to order fresh inquiry. The impugned order Annexure P-11 thus cannot be said to be legally sustainable. 15. While arriving at such a conclusion, this Court is supported by a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others Vs. B.N. Jha, (2003) 4 SCC 531 . The relevant portion of this judgment is reproduced here as under: “21. Authority who is higher than the commandant, in exercise of his power conferred upon him under Rule 46 could not have directed the commandant of a wing of his own unit to initiate departmental proceedings. In law it was the disciplinary authority alone who was required to apply his independent mind to the materials on record so as to enable him to arrive at the conclusion as to whether a disciplinary actions contemplated or not. He cannot do so at the instance of a higher authority who had not only no role to play in the matter but also admittedly was biased. (See Commr. of Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji and Union of India v. Harish Chandra Goswami) bias against the respondent on the part of Mr Garcha is undisputed.” 16. The petitioner cannot be made to suffer in this manner on account of the inquiry, if any, conducted by the inquiry officer in a slip shod manner. (See Commr. of Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji and Union of India v. Harish Chandra Goswami) bias against the respondent on the part of Mr Garcha is undisputed.” 16. The petitioner cannot be made to suffer in this manner on account of the inquiry, if any, conducted by the inquiry officer in a slip shod manner. In case further inquiry was required to be conducted or additional charge (s) required to be framed, the respondents should have proceeded in the matter in accordance with law and not in the manner as the 2nd respondent did in this matter. No doubt, the respondents may proceed afresh in the matter, however, only to the extent of additional charges like the one in the charge-sheet, Annexure P-12, omitted to be framed initially, but after following the procedure prescribed under the rules and also observance of the bare requirements of the principles of natural justice. 17. As regards the action of the 2nd respondent to withdraw the order of promotion of the petitioner as Inspector vide W.T. Message, dated 12.7.2011, Annexure P-6, is concerned, I am afraid that such recourse was available to the said respondent, particularly, when pursuant to his promotion vide office order No.A.2/Estt./List-F/2010-11-2901, dated 21.3.2011 the petitioner had already submitted his joining report on 19.4.2011 in Mandi District. Above all, as per the admission on the part of respondents, there was nothing adverse against the petitioner on 14.6.2010 when the Departmental Promotion Committee met and made recommendations qua promotion of the petitioner as Inspector on 6.7.2010 when his name was brought on list ‘F’. No doubt, vide inquiry report annexed to letter dated 27.3.2011, Annexure R-1, well before issuance of the office order qua according approval for promotion of the petitioner as Inspector, the State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Solan had reported that the petitioner did not investigate the case FIR No.18/2008, Police Station, Nalagarh properly and rather allegedly obtained `5,000/- as bribe from the complaint. However, irrespective of it, the 2nd respondent had issued order Annexure P-1, dated 13.3.2011 according thereby approval for his promotion as Inspector and even the Inspector General of Police (Southern Range), Mandi in compliance thereto has issued the order of promotion of the petitioner on 21.3.2011 pursuant to which he submitted the joining report in Mandi District on 19.4.2011, hence, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer on account of the acts, deeds and own wrongs of the respondents. Otherwise also, in the peculiar facts and circumstances, discussed supra, pending inquiry against the petitioner, he should have been allowed to continue as Inspector subject to final outcome thereof. 18. As regards the further plea in reply to the writ petition that another departmental inquiry has been ordered to be initiated against the petitioner on 1.3.2012 for violation of the provisions contained under Section 174/176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is held that the same cannot be said to have any bearing in the present case nor can be taken to defeat his claim for promotion to the post of Inspector. 19. The upshot of the discussion made hereinabove would be that the 2nd respondent was not legally competent to have quashed the inquiry report, Annexure P-9 or order Annexure P-10 passed by the disciplinary authority and even not competent to order fresh inquiry and rather, it is the competent authority (disciplinary authority) who could have ordered the de-novo inquiry in respect of the left out charges after following the procedure prescribed for the same and affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner also. The action of the 2nd respondent to withdraw the order of promotion of the petitioner to the post of Inspector in the manner as the said respondent did in the present case cannot also be said to be legal and factually sustainable and rather arbitrary, harsh, oppressive and violative of the principles of natural justice. I thus set aside the order Annexure P-6 whereby promotion of the petitioner to the post of Inspector has been withdrawn. I thus set aside the order Annexure P-6 whereby promotion of the petitioner to the post of Inspector has been withdrawn. The impugned order Annexure P-11 to the extent of quashing the inquiry report Annexure P-9 and order Annexure P-10 passed by the competent authority, is also set aside being without any jurisdiction with liberty reserved to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner with respect to left out charges, if any, and restrict the inquiry only in respect of those charges after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. There shall be a direction to the respondents to treat the petitioner duly promoted as Inspector and his continuity in the post from 19.4.2011, the date of his joining, subject to the final outcome of the inquiry, if any, conducted in respect of left out charges, no doubt, without prejudice to his liberty to challenge the order, if adverse to his interests, passed in such proceedings. 20. With the above observations, this petition succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. Pending application(s), if any, also shall stand disposed of. However, there is no order as to costs.