IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Misc.No.9748 of 2011 & Civil Writ Petition No.11831 of 2011 Date of Decision: July 29, 2011 Raj Pal ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. Civil Misc.No.9748 of 2011 Complete copy of Annexure P-10 taken on record. Application disposed of. Civil Writ Petition No.11831 of 2011 The petitioner has impugned the punishment of stoppage of two increments without future effect, which has been imposed upon him for the allegations that he did not carry out investigation in FIR No.91 dated 25.5.2009 properly. The FIR was registered under Sections 302/201 IPC. The departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner on the ground that he had committed serious lapses in the investigation of this case, so much so that he did not recover Zen car, which was used for committing the offence. The memo whereby Danda was recovered, was neither witnessed by any family member nor by any independent person. On the basis of these defects in the investigation, the serious crime had gone unpunished. The petitioner submitted his reply and thereafter the enquiry was held. The Enquiry Officer found the petitioner blameworthy and had recommended departmental enquiry of the allegations as made. Thereafter, the punishing authority has imposed punishment of stoppage of increments as noted. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order, which was dismissed. The petitioner has now approached this court through the present writ petition. The contention before the appellate authority by the petitioner was that during a meeting held on 7.11.2004 at Police Headquarters to review crime, law & order and administrative matters, the Director General of Police, Haryana had desired that such cases which are highly sensational in nature and are a bolt on humanity should be accorded top priority by the District Superintendents of Police and should be investigated by the SHOs. On this basis, the petitioner had contended that he was not even required to conduct the investigation. In such a case, the responsibility was that of the SHO. The petitioner had also pleaded that he had recovered the Zen Car, but the Enquiry Officer did not give any due weightage to the written reply. The appellate authority had perused the comments of the official concerned and has also perused the judgment which was passed by the court. After noticing that the acquittal was on account of lack of proper investigation, the appellate authority came to the conclusion that the allegations against the petitioner have been sufficiently established. Apart from this submission that the aspect of recovery of car, which was done, was not rightly appreciated by the Enquiry Officer, no other submission is made. The counsel is only seeking appreciation and re-appreciation of evidence, which is not within the scope of writ court. Dismissed. July 29, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE