IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.6553 of 2010 Date of decision : 4.5.2011 Rajbir ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana for the respondents. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioner impugns the orders dated 31.7.2008, 21.10.2008, 1.12.2008, 26.2.2009 and 7.10.2009 which have been attached with this petition as Annexures P-1, P-3, P-5, P-7 and P-9, respectively. The petitioner, who works as a Constable, faced allegations of having liquor and not making the entry regarding the arrival of the recruits. The complaint was given to the Inspector General of Police by a recruit on telephone and when the said Inspector General reached the place at 8.20 p.m. the petitioner ran away from the spot. An office of the rank of Superintendent of Police Dr.Suman Manjri, IPS was appointed as Enquiry Officer, who looked into the matter and found C.W.P.No.6553 of 2010 -2- that the petitioner was guilty of having consumed liquor while on duty and also for the dereliction of duty and not making the entry in the roznamcha regarding the recruits and also for running away when confronted by the Inspector General of Police, who wanted to ascertain the facts regarding his having consumed alcohol. He was ordered to be dismissed from service. An appeal followed which was also dismissed. In revision the misconduct of the petitioner was upheld but by taking a lenient view the punishment of dismissal was set aside and he was awarded stoppage of four annual increments with cumulative effect. In mercy petition this order was upheld. Aggrieved by the said order, the instant writ petition has been filed wherein learned counsel for the petitioner contends that according to the instructions attached along with the petition as Annexure P-10, the Enquiry Officer should not be junior in rank or status to the complainant. The complainant being the Inspector General of Police was an officer higher in the rank than the Enquiry Officer and since the Superintendent of Police was appointed as Enquiry Officer, the chances of her being under the influence of the complainant cannot be ruled out. He thus contends that the entire proceedings stand vitiated on this ground. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, justifies the entire proceedings and the action against the petitioner by saying that the entire procedure was properly followed and stated that in fact the petitioner has been let off leniently. On due consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is misplaced. C.W.P.No.6553 of 2010 -3- No objection was ever raised by the petitioner at the time when the enquiry proceedings were being conducted. He did not make any grievance of this fact that the enquiry in any way was being affected in view of the fact that the Superintendent of Police, who was conducting the inquiry was lesser in rank to the complainant. No prejudice has been shown which could suggest that the enquiry was unfair. In any eventuality, the allegations against the petitioner were serious enough and were rightly appreciated by the competent authority after giving every opportunity to the petitioner. It is settled principal of law that unless substantial prejudice is shown, the matter of procedure even if deviated from, should not result in the proceedings being rendered a nullity and thus I am not in agreement with the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court. Consequently, this writ petition is held to be without any merit and is dismissed. 4.5.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss