IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWPT No.9970 of 2008 Date of Decision: September 14, 2011 Karam Chand ..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the Petitioner : Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. __________________________________________ Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioner, while working as Constable and posted in Police Lines, Kaithu, was charge sheeted for an act of misconduct, namely, entering a false report in the Rojnamcha, maintained at the Police Lines, that he was reporting for duty on 4.7.2000, after lodging an under-trial back at Kanda Jail, who had been taken to a Court at Una. As a matter of fact, under-trial had not been lodged back in Kanda Jail, as he had escaped from the custody of the petitioner and one more Constable, by the name of Narinder Kumar. Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? É2É 2. Petitioner was charge-sheeted for entering the aforesaid false report in the Rojnamcha. That under-trial had been lodged back at Kanda Jail on 4.7.2000. On completion of inquiry, petitioner was visited with the penalty of forfeiture of three years approved service, permanently. He filed an appeal against the order of penalty to the Deputy Inspector General (DIG), who was the Appellate Authority. DIG passed order, copy Annexure R-1, for holding denovo inquiry. Appellate Authority observed in its order, copy Annexure R-1, that the departmental inquiry had been conducted in a perfunctory manner. Petitioner is aggrieved by this order. According to him, Appellate Authority had no power or jurisdiction to order denovo inquiry and that it could have passed any of the following orders, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 16.28 of Punjab Police Rules, as applicable to the Police Department of Himachal Pradesh. (a) Punishment could have been confirmed; or (b) punishment could have been enhanced, modified or annulled, or (c) order for further investigation or directing further investigation could have been passed, before disposing of the appeal. 3. Respondents, in their reply, have stated that the order passed by the DIG, i.e. Annexure R-1, is lawful as the inquiry was found to have been conducted in a perfunctory manner. É3É 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. As per Rule 16.28 of Punjab Police Rules, as applicable to the police officials of Himachal Pradesh, Appellate Authority could have passed any of the above referred to orders. It did not have the jurisdiction to order denovo inquiry, though it could have passed an order for further investigation at its own level or direct such further investigation to be made by the Disciplinary Authority or any other officer. 6. Learned Assistant Advocate General submits that denovo inquiry can be ordered, when the order of penalty is set aside, on account of some irregularity committed during the course of inquiry. He places reliance upon two judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court. Citations are (2005) 13 SCC 81 (State of Punjab and others Vs. Chander Mohan) and AIR 1962 SC 1334 (Devendra Pratap Narain Rai Sharma Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others). 7. In both the aforesaid cases, fresh departmental inquiries were conducted, after the Courts had quashed the proceedings of departmental inquiries, on the ground of irregularity in procedure. Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Devendra Pratap Narain Rai Sharma (supra) took notice of the provision of Rule 54 of É4É Fundamental Rules and held that fresh inquiry was permissible. Rule 54 (4) of Fundamental Rules says that where the order of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service is set aside by the Appellate Authority or Reviewing Authority, solely on the ground of non-compliance with the requirements of Clause (1) or Clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution and no further inquiry is proposed to be held, government servant shall be paid such amount of pay and allowances, to which he would have been entitled had he not been visited with any of the aforesaid penalties. Rule 54 gives power to Disciplinary Authority to hold denovo inquiries where the order of punishment of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service is set aside by the Appellate Authority or Reviewing Authority. 8. In the present case, petitioner had not been visited with any of the aforesaid penalties nor has the order of penalty of forfeiture of three years service been set aside by the Appellate Authority and, therefore, there was no question of denovo inquiry. 9. In the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Chander Mohan (supra), of course, the penalty was not of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service and it was a case of penalty of demotion, but the order of punishment had been set aside, on the ground that it had been passed by an incompetent authority and, so, fresh É5É departmental inquiry, initiated by the Appellate Authority, was held to be valid. 10. In the present case, Appellate Authority, without setting aside the order of punishment or even the inquiry report, on which the order of punishment is based, has ordered denovo inquiry, observing that the inquiry has been conducted in a perfunctory manner. Appellate Authority could have passed any of the aforesaid three orders, as per rule 16.28 of Punjab Police Rules. It had no power to pass an order for fresh inquiry, especially when it had not set aside the order of punishment. 11. Consequently, present writ petition is allowed. Impugned order, Annexure A-6, by which the Superintendent of Police complying with the order Annexure R1, ordered fresh inquiry as also the charge-sheet Annexure A-7, are quashed. Order Annexure R-1 is also quashed. Appellate Authority is directed to decide the appeal afresh and pass one of the orders, which it is authorized to pass, under Rule 16.28 of Punjab Police Rules. Disposed of September 14, 2011 (ss) (Surjit Singh), J.