Civil Writ Petition No. 6821 of 1991 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 6821 of 1991 (O&M) Date of decision: 26.07.2011 Lakhmi Chand (deceased) through LRs ...Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. A.S. Jattana, Addl. AG, Punjab for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH J. C.M. No. 7357 of 2011 The application is for impleading the LRs of the petitioner, who has died during the pendency of the writ petition. The application is supported by an affidavit. It is also pleaded that the right to sue is still survive. The prayer is allowed. The applicants mentioned in para 3 of the application are impleaded as LRs of the petitioner for the purpose of pursuing this petition only. The amended memo of parties is taken on record. Application disposed of. Civil Writ Petition No. 6821 of 1991 Lakhmi Chand, the late petitioner, who was serving as Civil Writ Petition No. 6821 of 1991 Constable with Punjab Armed Police has filed this writ petition to impugn the order imposing punishment of stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect against him. The appeal and revision against this order were also dismissed and so the petitioner has filed this petition to impugn these orders. The late petitioner had joined the police service in the year 1965 as Constable. The petitioner claims that he was serving the department of police sincerely and to the entire satisfaction of his seniors. The late petitioner, Lakhmi Chand, was on deputation with Chandigarh Administration and was posted as sentry duty at the residence of Shri Sher Singh the then Revenue Minister of Haryana State at Kothi No. 56, Sector 27-A, Chandigarh. The guard was under the charge of two Constables and one Head Constable. On 13.03.1979, Inspector Darshan Singh came to the house to check guards. Head Constable Incharge of guard, and other two constables were found absent. Inspector inquired about their whereabouts from the late petitioner, who apprised him that one Constable had gone to deliver the dak in Vidhan Sabha and another had gone for taking meal. Incharge of the guard statedly had gone to attend his relatives. The Inspector asked for Roznamcha. The late petitioner gave him Roznamcha where the Inspector made entries. The petitioner had averred that these entries were false. The Inspector, however, has stated that the petitioner tempered with thre record. The petitioner was accused of threatening the Inspector, in case, he made any entry of absence in daily diary in his presence and when the Inspector wanted to make an entry, the petitioner Civil Writ Petition No. 6821 of 1991 snatched the daily diary from his hand and also told him that he would kick the Inspector with rifle butt if he did not leave the guard room immediately. The Inspector had left the place immediately. He reported the matter and sought inquiry against the petitioner for his misconduct on his part. On the basis of this report, the inquiry was initiated against the petitioner by Superintendent of Police, U.T., Chandigarh. The petitioner has stated that inquiry was not held in accordance with the rule position. The petitioner, however, has submitted his written statement alongwith list of witnesses. The petitioner was held guilty by the inquiry officer, who submitted his report, Annexure P-3. The petitioner was served a show cause notice tentatively passing a punishment of dismissal from service. The petitioner submitted his reply. Taking a lenient view, the Superintendent of Police passed an order of stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect. During the pendency of the writ petition, the late petitioner had superannuated in the year 2003 and has died on 19.01.2010. No one has appeared on behalf of the petitioner at the time the case was taken up for hearing. This is a position, despite the fact that the writ petition was filed in the year 1991 and application has also been moved for impleading the LRs. I have perused the documents available on record and find no valid reason which would call for interference in the punishment imposed on the late petitioner. The petitioner has not pleaded any procedural and jurisdictional error. Proper inquiry was held and on the basis of evidence, the petitioner was found guilty. Despite clear act of his gross disobedience and serious indiscipline, Civil Writ Petition No. 6821 of 1991 the petitioner was shown leniency and let off by imposing the punishment of stoppage of three annual increments. No case for interference, thus, is made out. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. July 26, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH) rts JUDGE