Judgment:
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9211 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9211 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: JULY04 2014 Desh Raj & another .....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?.
2.
To be referred to the Reporters or not?.
3.
Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.
Present: Mr.Vikas Malik, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Mr.Sunil Nehra, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State.
***** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
(ORAL) Petitioners have approached this Court impugning the order dated 30.12.2008 (Annexure P-4) vide which the Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra-respondent No.4 has stopped two increments with cumulative effect of petitioner No.1- Desh Raj.
Challenge has also been posed upon the order dated 19.03.2009 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Appellate Authority i.e.Inspector General of Police, Ambala Range, Ambala, rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioners and the order dated 30.09.2009 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Director General of Police, Haryana- respondent No.2 dismissing the revision.
Harish Kumar 2014.07.08 10:13 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9211 of 2011 -2- It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that in the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, the basic reliance has been placed upon the conversations which have taken place between the Head Constable Rajpal and the persons namely, Amrik Singh and Dalip Singh whose truck containing illicit liquor is stated to have been allowed to have been passed on 10.10.2007 while it was going to Gujarat.
He contends that even the telephonic communications on the personal mobile are dated 13.11.2007 and 16.11.2007 which are subsequent to the date of incidence and that too with HC Rajpal.
Evidence has also come that Head Constable Rajpal had family relations with these two persons.
Except for the fact that the petitioner No.1 was posted alongwih Head Constable Rajpal Singh, there is no evidence against the petitioner No.1.
He, on this basis, contends that the conclusion drawn by the Enquiry Officer holding the petitioner guilty cannot sustain as the case is of no evidence.
Prayer has, thus, been made for setting aside the impugned order alongwith consequential orders qua the petitioner No.1 vide which the punishment of stoppage of two increments has been imposed upon him.
On the other hand, counsel for the State contends that the petitioner cannot be said to be not aware of the fact that the truck contained illicit liquor which was being smuggled to Gujarat specially when he alongwith Head Constable Rajpal was present on the Check Post Saya Chowk, Pipli.
Without his connivance and without his knowledge, the truck could not have been allowed to pass.
Counsel for the State has placed reliance upon the statement of Dalip Singh-Inspector PW-6 who has stated that he was told by Dalip Singh and Amrik Singh that petitioner Desh Raj Harish Kumar 2014.07.08 10:13 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9211 of 2011 -3- and HC Rajpal had taken money for release of the truck.
He, on this basis, contends that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer is in accordance with the law and does not call for any interference.
I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case.
The present writ petition was preferred by both Desh Raj- petitioner No.1 and Rajpal- petitioner No.2.
Writ petition qua petitioner No.2 – Rajpal stands dismissed.
The present writ petition, therefore, has to be considered with regard to petitioner No.1-Desh Raj alone.
A perusal of the Enquiry Report shows that the telephonic conversations which have been relied upon by the Enquiry Officer to hold the petitioner No.1 as well as Head Constable Rajpal guilty are between Dalip Singh and Rajpal and that too, on two different dates i.e.13.11.2007 and 16.11.2007 which are much after the date of incidence i.e 10.10.2007.
The evidence which has been relied upon by the counsel for the State to contend that the petitioners have accepted bribe for release of the vehicle also indicates that Dalip Singh and Amrik Singh told Inspector Dalip Singh during investigation that the petitioners had taken money from the owner of the truck to release it.
It has not been stated that money has changed hands in their presence.
The same, therefore, cannot be made the basis for holding the petitioner guilty for having taken bribe for release of the truck.
It may be added here that Rajpal was the Head Constable whereas the petitioner No.1 is only a Constable.
There is, thus, no evidence against the petitioner No.1 in the enquiry and findings, thus, recorded by the Enquiry Officer cannot be said to be based on any evidence.
The findings, thus, recorded Harish Kumar 2014.07.08 10:13 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9211 of 2011 -4- qua the petitioner No.1 by the Enquiry Officer cannot be relied upon to hold the petitioner No.1 guilty.
Consequential orders passed by the punishing authority, the appellate authority and the revisional authority, thus, cannot sustain.
In view of the above, the present writ petition qua the petitioner No.1 is allowed.
Impugned order dated 30.12.2008 (Annexure P-4) and consequential orders dated 19.03.2009 (Annexure P-5) and order dated 30.09.2009 (Annexure P-6) relating to Desh Raj-petitioner No.1 only, are hereby quashed.
July 04, 2014 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) Harish JUDGE Harish Kumar 2014.07.08 10:13