CWP(T) No. 8719/2008 28.04.2011 Present: Mr. H. K. Paul, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R. M. Bisht, Dy. A.G with Mr. Vinod Thakur, Dy. A.G. for the respondents Records perused and returned. Petitioner has prayed mainly for the following reliefs:- (a) The Orders whereby penalty has been imposed upon the applicant, may kindly be quashed and set-aside. (b) The applicant may kindly be held entitled to all consequential benefits i.e. arrears of pay and allowances and further promotion to the next higher ranks of Sub-Inspector of Police and Inspector of Police as if no penalty has been imposed upon the applicant. (c) The Respondents may kindly be directed to pay the arrears of pay and allowances with interest @ 18% P.A. 2. For the mis-conduct of the petitioner, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. There is no dispute that petitioner was charged and the articles of charges supplied to him and the Inquiry Officer appointed who submitted his report. There is also no dispute with regard to the fact that proper opportunity of hearing/representation in compliance of the provisions of the Articles/Rules was offered and Rules adhered to during the inquiry proceedings. Based on the inquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty of forfeiture of five years of approved service with permanent effect. In an appeal preferred by the petitioner, penalty was reduced to forfeiture of one year of approved service permanently. This was so done in terms of order dated 20.4.2002 (Annexure A-4) passed by the Appellate Authority (Dy. Inspr. Genl. of Police). 3. Essentially, charge against the petitioner was that in connivance with the accused he had misplaced file pertaining to F.I.R. No. 43/92 dated 3.3.1992 under Sections 406 & 420 IPC registered at Police Station, Paonta Sahib, which was entrusted to him as an Investigating Officer. The Inquiry Officer found this charge not to be proved, but however the other charge against the petitioner, that he had failed to maintain proper record of the movement of the file and also that he had not maintained any case diary with regard to the investigation carried out by him and handing over the case file to the Investigating Officer stood proved. 4. Scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in such like matters is limited. From the record, it could not be shown as to how the findings arrived at by the Inquiry Officer are perverse and are not borne out from the record. No doubt from the statement of one of the witnesses, it can be inferred that S.I. Mahant Ram, Investigating Officer had sent the record with regard to the movement of the said file, but nonetheless this would not absolve the petitioner of his duty to not only show the movement of the file in the case diary but also handing over of the same to his successor in person. According to the petitioner, he had kept the file in the trunk of the Investigating Officer Mahant Ram. Now this conduct of the petitioner in handling such a sensitive matter is uncalled for and definitely amounts to dereliction of duty. Consequently, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition is dismissed. April 28, 2011 ( Sanjay Karol ), (rana) Judge.