IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 2929 of 2008. Reserved on : 07.09.2010. Decided on: 21.09.2010. __________________________________________________________ Madan Lal. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J.: Petitioner was appointed as Constable in Police Department on 6.3.1976. He was promoted to the post of Head Constable on 15.9.1982. He was served with a charge-sheet by the disciplinary authority on 6.7.1991. The Inquiry Officer submitted the report to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect vide order dated 30.9.1992 on the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Northern Range. He modified the punishment by withholding one annual increment without 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - cumulative effect. The review petition preferred by the petitioner was rejected by the Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh. 2. Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the imposition of penalty of withholding of one annual increment without cumulative effect is illegal. He then contended that the inquiry has not been held in accordance with the procedure prescribed. 3. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has supported the imposition of penalty. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. Petitioner has been served with a charge-sheet, to which he had filed reply. The Inquiry Officer has given ample opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself. Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any discrepancy, shortcoming or perversity in the inquiry report. The disciplinary authority on the basis of the report furnished by the Inquiry Officer has imposed the penalty of withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect on the petitioner vide order dated 30.9.1992. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Northern Range, in appeal, preferred by the petitioner has modified the penalty to withholding of one annual increment, that too, without cumulative effect. The Reviewing Authority has reiterated the stand taken by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Northern Range. The inquiry has been held against the petitioner in accordance with law. The petitioner has also been heard by the disciplinary authority before the imposition of penalty. The petitioner had performed the duty from noon, i.e. 12.00 to 3.00 p.m. and 9 p.m. to midnight on 28.6.1991. On - 3 - 29.6.1991 he had performed the duty again from 12.00 noon to 3.00 p.m. vide D.D. No.7 dated 29.6.1991 and not from 9.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon as claimed by him. His next round of duty was rightly fixed from 9.00 p.m. midnight for 29.6.1991. He has not performed his duty even from 6.00 p.m. to 9.00 p.m. He had, in fact, only performed 3 hours duty on 29.6.1991 and he was supposed to perform one more round of duty. The petitioner belongs to the disciplined force. He was required to be vigilant and it was expected from him to discharge his duties diligently since he was posted at the official residence of His Holiness, Dalai Lama. In these circumstances, he has rightly been held guilty for absence from duty. 6. However, before parting with the judgment, it is made clear that the petitioner was required to be sent for Intermediate Course immediately after the expiry of the punishment period. The case of the petitioner was though considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee on 20.2.1995 to undergo Intermediate Course, however, his case was not recommended due to currency of punishment. 7. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is partly allowed. The respondents are directed to send the petitioner for Intermediate Course, if not already sent. There shall be no order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. September 21, 2010. (sck).