Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1331 (PNJ)

Raminder Singh v. State Of Punjab

2020-06-26

DEEPAK SIBAL

body2020
JUDGMENT Deepak Sibal, J. (Oral) - Case taken up through video conferencing. 2. Through the present petition the petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 26.08.2019 (Annexure P-18) vide which the punishment of stoppage of two annual increments without future effect had been imposed upon him. Challenge has also been made to the inquiry report dated 21.05.2019 (Annexure P-16) vide which the petitioner had been held guilty of the charges levelled against him. 3. The facts in brief which are required to be noticed for adjudicating upon the present petition are that the petitioner who is serving as a Superintendent of Police (Detective), Civil Lines, Hoshiarpur was served with a charge sheet dated 15.01.2019 under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 (for short, the Rules). The brief of the charge levelled against the petitioner, as contained in the charge sheet, is as under:- "According to report sent by Hon'ble Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chandigarh to Registrar General, Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh vide Letter No. A.S.J.-2018/216 dated 6.08.2018, the Trial Court of Chandigarh issued 17 summons, 3 bailable warrants and 3 non-bailable warrants to you for appearing as prosecution witness in connection to case F.I.R. No. 52 dated 16.03.2016 under Section 363/302/201/120-B I.P.C. Police Station Maulijagran, Chandigarh. You only appeared before court on 25.07.2018, upon issuance of non-bailable warrants. Therefore, you have committed grave negligence by not answering the summons/warrants issued by Hon'ble Court for 23 times." 4. A perusal of the afore quoted charge reveals that the petitioner had been charged with negligence on account of his non-appearance in a trial at Chandigarh in spite of the fact that he had been issued summons on seventeen occasions and bailable and non-warrants on three occasions each. 5. The petitioner filed a reply to the charge levelled against him but finding his response to be unsatisfactory an inquiry officer was appointed to hold an inquiry into the afore referred charge against the petitioner. The inquiry officer, who was a retired District & Sessions Judge, through his report dated 21.05.2019 found the petitioner to be careless and negligent in the performance of his duties. The inquiry officer, who was a retired District & Sessions Judge, through his report dated 21.05.2019 found the petitioner to be careless and negligent in the performance of his duties. The inquiry report was forwarded to the punishing authority who served a copy of the same upon the petitioner for his comments which were given by him and after consideration of which the punishing authority, through his order dated 26.08.2019, agreed with the findings of the inquiry officer and imposed upon the petitioner the punishment of stoppage of two annual increments without future effect. Such order passed by the punishing authority as also the inquiry report are the subject matter of challenge in the present petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard at length. 7. The petitioner who is presently serving as a Superintendent of Police (Detective), Civil Lines, Hoshiarpur was served with a charge sheet for having not appeared as a witness in a trial at Chandigarh in spite of the fact that he had been issued summons by the Trial Court on seventeen occasions, thrice issued bailable warrants as also non-bailable warrants on another three occasions. Finding the petitioner's reply to the charge sheet not satisfactory a retired District & Sessions Judge was appointed as an inquiry officer to hold an inquiry into the aforesaid charge levelled against the petitioner. On the conclusion of such inquiry the inquiry officer held the petitioner guilty of being careless and negligent in his duties. The punishing authority after serving upon the petitioner a copy of the inquiry report and inviting his comments as also granting him an opportunity of personal hearing agreed with the findings recorded by the inquiry officer and decided to punish the petitioner with stoppage of two annual increments without future effect. 8. A perusal of the record reveals that after consideration of the evidence on record the inquiry officer has concluded that the petitioner had been careless and negligent in the performance of his duties as in spite of service on various occasions of summons issued by the Trial Court he had failed to appear as a witness before it. 8. A perusal of the record reveals that after consideration of the evidence on record the inquiry officer has concluded that the petitioner had been careless and negligent in the performance of his duties as in spite of service on various occasions of summons issued by the Trial Court he had failed to appear as a witness before it. The conclusion arrived at by the inquiry officer is extracted below - "In the light of findings recorded above I reach at a conclusion that the delinquent officer Sh.Raminder Singh PPS remained careless and negligent in performance of his duty by not appearing in the trial court as witness in case FIR No. 52/2016 of Police Station Mauli Jagran despite due service of summons on various occasions. Charges leveled against the delinquent vide Memo No. 2/69/2018-1H1/117 dated 15.01.2019 stand proved. 9. The punishing authority, after considering the comments furnishing by the petitioner to the findings recorded by the inquiry officer, as also considering the stand taken by him during the course of personal hearing granted to him found that even if on some occasions the petitioner was not served the summons he had failed to appear before the Trial Court in spite of service of summons on at least five occasions. The punishing authority has further recorded in the impugned order that on one of the dates when the petitioner was served to appear before the Trial Court he did not do so as according to him he was confused. The relevant portion of the findings recorded by the punishing authority are as under: - "5. On 26.07.2019, by giving the opportunity of personal hearing, Additional Chief Secretary Homes conducted the hearing of Sh. Raminder Singh, P.P.S. and also considered that Sh.Raminder Singh was issued summons 23 times. He stated that he was not served summons 17 times and received only 5 times. The summons received by the staff was denied by him because these were not served upon him. If his statement is accurate, then he has not appeared before the court on 09.01.2017, 18.08.2017, 19.12.2017, 16.01.2018, 05.03.2018 and 16.05.2018. He has stated that on 16.01.2018 he went to High Court for a different case and on remaining days he was busy in other office works due to which he was not able to appear before the court. He has stated that on 16.05.2018, he was confused. He has stated that on 16.01.2018 he went to High Court for a different case and on remaining days he was busy in other office works due to which he was not able to appear before the court. He has stated that on 16.05.2018, he was confused. Sh.Raminder Singh was well aware about the fact that the case in which he was to be appeared is a murder case of his official constable Sh.Jasvir Singh and it is also instance of indiscipline to not correspond the matter of murder case of his official. Therefore, he is being punished with stoppage of two annual increments without future effect." 10. Violation of principles of natural justice or the procedure prescribed under the Rules by both the inquiry officer and the punishing authority is neither complained of by the petitioner nor found on record. There is also no complaint of any malafide against the inquiry officer or the punishing authority. The afore quoted findings of guilt with regard to the petitioner's negligence recorded by the inquiry officer as also the punishing authority are found to be reasonable and not perverse warranting no interference by this Court in writ jurisdiction especially when the same have been recorded in the case of the petitioner who as a serving senior officer in the police department was required to act with responsibility so as to set an example for his subordinates. Unfortunately, he acted otherwise. Dismissed.