ORDER 1. The present petition, under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 31.3.2015 passed by respondent No.4/Superintendent of Police, Gwalior whereby one increment of the petitioners for the period of one year has been reduced. 2. The petitioners are further aggrieved by the order dated 14.7.2015 passed by respondent No.3/Inspector General of Police, PHQ, Bhopal whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 31.3.2015 has been rejected. 3. Short facts of the case are that the petitioner No.1/Ramji Sharan Gupta holding the post of Head Constable, was posted in CSP Office, Purani Chhawani, District Gwalior and petitioner No.2/Rajbihari Rajey holding the post of Constable was posted in Police Station Indarganj, Gwalior at the relevant point of time. On 29.10.2013, a charge-sheet was issued against them and thereafter, 4.12.2013 a fresh charge sheet was issued whereby two charges were levelled against them which are as under:- ^^vkj¨i 1- Fkkuk banjxat d¢ vi- Ø- 282@13 èkkjk 457] 380 rk- fg- d¢ lansgh vkj¨ihx.k 'ks: ,oa lw[kk mQZ ;qojkt dh lqj{kk esa ykijokgh cjrus d¢ QyLo:i iqfyl vfÒj{kk ls Òkxus dk volj nsdj vius drZO;¨a d¢ çfr Ĩj ykijokgh çnf'kZr djukA 2- mij¨äkuqlkj ÑR; dj flfoy lsok vkpj.k fu;e¨a ,oa iqfyl jsX;qys'ku d¢ iSjk&64 dk mYyaÄu djukA^^ 4. After issuance of the charge-sheet, the petitioners duly submitted their replies and denied the charges. The Disciplinary Authority being dissatisfied with their replies filed by the petitioners directed for departmental inquiry. The Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry and examined number of witnesses and finally submitted inquiry report to the respondent No.5/SP, Gwalior wherein it was stated that against petitioner No.2/Rajbihari Rajey, the aforesaid charges were not proved whereas, against petitioner No.1/Ramji Sharan Gautam, Charge No.1 was found partly proved and Charge No.2 were found proved. Thereafter, on 17.12.2014, notices were issued to the petitioners by the respondent No.4/Senior S.P., Gwalior, which was duly replied by them. After considering their replies, the respondent No.4 had passed the impugned order dated 31.3.2015 inflicting penalty of reducing one increment of the petitioners for a year. The petitioner being dissatisfied with the order dated 31.03.2015 preferred an appeal before respondent No.3/Inspector General of Police, Gwalior Zone which was dismissed vide order dated 16.06.2015. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the present petition has been filed. 5. The petitioner being dissatisfied with the order dated 31.03.2015 preferred an appeal before respondent No.3/Inspector General of Police, Gwalior Zone which was dismissed vide order dated 16.06.2015. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the present petition has been filed. 5. Shri D.S. Raghuwanshi - learned counsel for the petitioners has argued before this Court that the impugned orders dated 31.3.2015 and 14.7.2015 passed by the respondents No.3 and 4 being contrary to M.P. Police Regulation (Extensions and Amendments) rules, 1964 are liable to be quashed, inasmuch as, in the present case, the enquiry had not been properly conducted and no opportunity was granted to the petitioners and even they were not given opportunity to produce their defence witnesses and the enquiry was conducted in a very hurried and haste manner, therefore, the Disciplinary Authority had committed a grave error of law in inflicting the penalty of reducing one increment for a year. 6. It was further submitted that despite of the fact that the charges levelled against petitioner No.2/Raj Bihari Rajey, were not found proved, the punishment order has been passed and against the petitioner No.1/Ramji Sharan Gupta, also the charges levelled against him were not found fully proved despite the Inquiry Officer had given finding against the petitioners which is per-se illegal, as the petitioners No.1 and 2 were working as Writer and Assistant Writer respetively from 14.7.2013 and as per the report submitted vide Sanha No.1034 at 22.5, duties were assigned to them in place of Constables Ramphal and Narayan Singh and with regard to Santry Guard duty, names of Constables Suresh Chandra, Manoj Bahadur and Satish Sharma were mentioned and name of petitioner No.1 Ramjisharan Rajey was mentioned as Guard Commander, which in light of Regulations 587 and 588 of the rules of 1964 was not correct, as the petitioner No.1 being a Writer could had just acted as a Clerk, Accountant and Record Keeper, but not as a Guard commander. It was thus submitted that the charges as aforesaid against the petitioners should be quashed and the impugned orders of inflicting penalty of reducing one increment for a year being bad in law be set aside. 7. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the orders impugned herein be set aside. 8. Per contra, learned Govt. 7. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the orders impugned herein be set aside. 8. Per contra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and had prayed for dismissal of the present petition considering the gravity of charges amounting to dereliction of duty and serious misconduct. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. The conclusion arrived at by the Inquiry Officer reads as under: ^^eSa foosd vxzoky uxj iqfyl vèkh{kd egkjktiqjk ftyk Xokfy;j vipkjhx.k ç- vkj- 2015 jketh'kj.k] vkj{kd 1432 jktfcgkjh] vkj{kd 1220 lrh'k 'kekZ] vkj{kd 796 eu¨t cgknqj ,oa vkj{kd 51 lqjs'kpUæ ij çFke vkj¨i gS fd Fkkuk bUnjxat d¢ vi- Ø- 282@13 èkkjk 457] 380 rk- fg- d¢ lansgh vkj¨ihx.k 'ks: ,oa lw[kk mQZ ;qojkt dh lqj{kk esa ykijokgh cjrus d¢ QyLo:i iqfyl vfÒj{kk ls Òkxus dk volj nsdj vius drZO;¨a d¢ çfr Ĩj ykijokgh çnf'kZr djuk vipkjh vkj{kd 796 eu¨t cgknqj] vkj{kd 2015 lrh'k 'kekZ ,oa vkj{kd 1432 jktfcgkjh d¢ fo#) vçekf.kr ikrk gw¡ rFkk vipkjh ç- vk- 2015 jketh'kj.k ,oa vkj{kd 51 lqjs'kpUæ 'kekZ d¢ fo#) vkaf'kd :i ls çekf.kr ikrk gw¡A vipkjhx.k ij vfèkj¨fir vkj¨i Øekad&02^^ mij¨äkuqlkj ÑR; dj flfoy lsok vkpj.k fu;e¨a ,oa iqfyl jsX;wys'ku d¢ iSjk&84 dk mYyaÄu djuk^^ vipkjh vkj{kd 796 eu¨t cgknqj vkj{kd 2015 lrh'k 'kekZ ,oa vkj{kd 1432 jktfcgkjh d¢ fo#) vçekf.kr ikrk gw¡ rFkk vipkjh ç-vkj- 2015 jketh'kj.k ,oa vkj{kd 51 lqjs'kpUæ d¢ fo#) vkaf'kd :i ls çekf.kr ikrk gw¡A vipkjhx.k ij vfèkj¨fir vkj¨i Øekad&02 mij¨äkuqlkj ÑR; dj flfoy lsok vkpj.k fu;e¨a ,oa iqfyl jsX;wys'ku d¢ iSjk&84 dk mYyaÄu djuk^^ vipkjh vkj{kd 796 eu¨t cgknqj vkj{kd 2015 lrh'k 'kekZ ,oa vkj{kd 1432 jktfcgkjh d¢ fo#) vçekf.kr ikrk gw¡ rFkk vipkjh ç- vkj- 2015 jketh'kj.k ,oa vkj{kd 51 lqjs'kpUæ d¢ fo#) çekf.kr ikrk gw¡A^^ 11. From the conclusion arrived by the Inquiry Officer, it is evident that the charges against the petitioner No.2/No.2/Raj Bihari Rajey Raj for showing gross negligence towards his duty which gave an opportunity to Sheru and Sukha alias Yuvraj, who were the accused in Crime No.282/13 for the offence under section 457, 380 of IPC, to escape from police custody was found to be not proved after inquiry and the Charge No.1 against the petitioner No.1 was found to be partially proved and Charge No.2 was found proved. 12. 12. Regulations 587 and 588 of M.P. Police Regulation (Extensions and Amendments) rules, 1964 reads as under: 587. Station writer - Duties of. - The station writer is a literate head constable who acts as clerk, accountant and record keeper at a police station. He is also occasionally the officer in charge of the police station. 588. (1) He receives and open the dak, and hands to the officer in charge of the police station all papers intended for him. He keeps the register of correspondence, writes all reports and returns called for by the Superintendent's office, and is responsible that all pending papers, and promptly disposed of. At the close of every month, he enters up in the station diary a list of unanswered references. (2) Every morning, he brings to the notice of the officer in charge of the police station (if the latter is present at the station) all postponed orders and pending papers awaiting execution and reply. At or after the morning parade, he records the orders of the same officer as to the distribution of duties for the day. (3) He writes up the general diary and all the other police station registers. He sees that the files of the Police Gazette and Criminal Intelligence Gazette are kept up to date, and that all orders and notices contained in them when concern the staff or the work of the staff are carefully noted. He registers all births and deaths reported at the station by the village watchman or by private persons. 13. From the aforesaid Regulations, it is clear that a Station Writer, who is a literate Head Constable, at the most could have been assigned the duties of Clerk, Accountant and Record Keeper at a police station and occasionally, he could also perform the duties of Officer-in-Charge of the police station, but herein case, the petitioner No.1 was never assigned the duties of In-charge of police station nor he was directed to perform the duties of Guard/Guard Commandant. Likewise, petitioner No.2, who was working as a Assistant Writer was not assigned any of the said duties and as per Regulation 588, as a Clerk of the police station, the petitioners were required to perform the duties as mentioned therein, which were restricted to receiving and opening of the dak and handing over all the papers to the InCharge of the police station intending for him to keep the register of correspondence, to write all reports and return, call for by the Superintendent's Office and would be responsible for all the pending papers, and disposed them of promptly and lastly, in the end of the month, to enter in the station diary a list of unanswered references. 14. Apart from the aforesaid, every day, his duties would include to bring to the notice of the Officer-in-Charge of the police station all postponed orders and pending papers awaiting execution and reply and at or after the morning parade, records the orders of the same officer as to the distribution of duties for the day, also to write up the general diary and all the police registers and see that the files of the Police Gazette and Criminal Intelligence Gazette are kept up to date, and that all orders and notices contained in them when concern the staff or the work of the staff are carefully noted and to register all births and deaths reported at the station by the village watchman or by private persons, but nowhere the duties of Writer/Assistant Writer included keeping a guard on the accused persons kept in custody; thus when it was not the duty of the petitioners to have kept a guard on the accused persons, no question of they being accomplish in their running away arises and it cannot be said that there was some dereliction of duties on their part or they had committed any misconduct as per Regulation 64, therefore, the punishment of inflicting penalty of reducing one increment of the petitioners for a year on the basis of dereliction of the duties by respondent No.4 vide impugned order dated 31.3.2015 deserves to be and is hereby quashed and as a consequence thereof, the order dated 14.7.2015 passed by respondent No.3 is also quashed. 15. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. 15. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. Respondents are directed give all the consequential benefits arising out of the reduced increment of the petitioners by the impugned order.