IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 8171/2008 Reserved on: 3.3.2011 Decided on:9.3. 2011 _____________________________________________ Smt. Sushma and others. …Petitioners. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioners : Mr. M.M. Negi, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anshul Bansal, Addl. A.G. with Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. Advocate General and Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. A.G. ____________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Harish Kumar, original petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘petitioner’ for convenience sake), filed the present petition, however, during the pendency of the petition, he died on 24.6.2009. Present petitioners, legal heirs of deceased Harish Kumar, were permitted to be brought on record, as petitioners, vide order dated 21.12.2010. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 2. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and the preliminary inquiry was conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rampur. Regular inquiry was assigned to Deputy Superintendent of Police, Theog. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Theog conducted the inquiry and concluded that both the charges levelled against the petitioner stood proved. Thereafter, Disciplinary Authority, issued a show cause notice to the petitioner why the penalty of removal be not imposed upon him. He filed reply to the same. The Disciplinary Authority on 4.1.1996 imposed penalty of forfeiture of two years’ service with permanent effect for the purpose of future increments. He preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Southern Zone). He reduced the penalty of two years forfeiture of service to one year with permanent effect. Petitioner further preferred an appeal before the Director General of Police. He rejected the same on 24.9.2001. 3. Mr. M.M. Negi has strenuously argued that the charges levelled against the petitioner of willful absence and misbehaviour with Ms. Kiran Kumari have not been proved conclusively. He further argued that the inquiry report is based on surmises and conjecture and the evidence led has 3 not been appreciated correctly. According to him, the imposition of penalty of forfeiture of one year service with permanent effect is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. 4. Mr. Anshul Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General has supported the imposition of penalty. He has argued that the inquiry report is based on correct appreciation of evidence led by the Department as well as petitioner. He has further argued that the penalty imposed upon the petitioner is not disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 6. The charges levelled against the petitioner was that he has remained willfully absent without permission of the competent authority on 14.1.1995 and 15.1.1995 and he has also misbehaved with Ms. Kiran Kumari under the influence of liquor on the evening of 14.1.1995. Ms. Kiran Kumari had appeared as PW-4. According to her, she alongwith her sister Rekha Sharma, was present in her Dhaba at about 8-9 P.M. in the evening. Petitioner and 2-3 other persons came with him and asked for food. Petitioner was told that food is not available. Thereafter petitioner 4 started abusing them. Petitioner was taken out from Dhaba by his friends. He continued hurling abuses to the petitioner and also pelted stones on the roof. She alongwith her mother went to Police Station, Kumarsain to lodge complaint with the Station House Officer. She also gave complaint at Rampur and one copy of which was sent to Superintendent of Police, Shimla vide Ex.PW-1/E. Thereafter, Deputy Superintendent of Police came for investigation from Rampur, who recorded her statement Ex.PW-4/A. 7. Petitioner belongs to disciplined force. He had no occasion to visit Dhaba run by Ms. Kiran Kumari with her family members in the evening of 14.1.1995 under the influence of liquor. He was drunk at the time when he visited the Dhaba. He misbehaved with Ms. Kiran Kumari and also pelted stones on the Dhaba. The Inquiry Officer has also taken into consideration the statements of all the witnesses. The conclusions drawn by him on the basis of statements of all the witnesses, more particularly, on the basis of testimony of Ms. Kiran Kumari, that the petitioner visited the Dhaba in the evening of 14.1.1995 and was drunk are just and proper. 8. Now, as far as the second charge is concerned, the precise case of the petitioner is that he had fallen sick. He asked his landlord to get some medicine from the Doctor. 5 According to him, the landlord brought the medicine from the private practitioner. Petitioner had not chosen to go to Government Hospital, which was in close proximity where he was residing. He had not taken trouble even to inform the Police Station that he was sick. Rather it is evident that he feigned illness. He could send somebody or inform the police on telephone, which facility was easily available in Kumarsain Bazar. In view of the conclusions/findings given in the inquiry report, petitioner was called upon to give his explanation why the penalty of removal be not imposed upon him. He has filed reply to the same. The Disciplinary Authority has taken a lenient view by imposing two years forfeiture of service permanently debarring him from earning two increments in future of service. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Southern Zone) has further diluted the penalty of forfeiture of two years to one year with permanent effect. 9. Petitioner also preferred further appeal to the Director General of Police. He has dismissed the same on 24.9.2001 by a detailed order. Contentions raised by the petitioner have been taken into consideration by the Director General of Police. There is neither any illegality nor any irregularity in the order dated 24.9.2001 passed by the 6 Director General of Police. The penalty imposed upon the petitioner is neither disproportionate nor harsh but the same commensurates with the alleged misconduct. He has brought bad name to the entire police force by visiting the Dhaba under the influence of liquor in the evening of 14.1.1995 and misbehaving with a woman. He has remained absent without permission of the competent authority on 14.1.1995 and 15.1.1995. 10. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 9.3. 2011 *awasthi*