IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.1182 of 1994 Date of Decision: 28.05.2009 Sheelak Ram ...Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI 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. Subhash Ahuja, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana. *** AJAY TEWARI J. By way of the present petition the petitioner has challenged his reversion from the post of Head Constable to the post of Constable despite being exonerated by the inquiry officer of the two charges out of the three, the third charge having not been established. Succinctly put the facts of the present petition are that the petitioner having been posted as Head Constable, Police Post Model Town, Sonepat was on dusk patrolling duty when he found a truck CWP No.1182 of 1994 -2- parked on the main road disrupting the free flow of traffic. He filed a case against the driver of the truck under Section 283 IPC. The driver of the truck misbehaved not only with the petitioner but also with other police officials. Since the truck belonged to a high dignitary, in order to oblige him the truck and its driver were released and petitioner was charge sheeted by the authorities. A departmental inquiry was also initiated against him but he was exonerated in that inquiry. However, respondent No.4 issued a notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service. Petitioner replied to the said notice but ignoring the findings of the inquiry officer as also the reply filed by the petitioner to the show cause notice, respondent No.4 imposed the punishment of reversion of the petitioner from the rank of Head Constable to the rank of Constable which is highly unreasonable and unjustified. Hence, this petition. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4 it has been averred that the petitioner was found to have registered a false case against the driver of the truck. It was denied that the petitioner was placed under suspension due to the fact that the truck belonged to high dignitary. The petitioner was held guilty in the departmental inquiry for registering a false case for which he was reverted to the post of Constable. However, an important fact which has not been denied is that in fact the truck was parked on the road and thus it could not but have disturbed the free flow of traffic. CWP No.1182 of 1994 -3- It has further not been denied that truck belonged to a high dignitary viz., the then Chief Minister of Haryana. Looked at it from this angle it can not be held that the petitioner has registered a false case. It may be noticed that even the inquiry officer had corroborated that the truck was indeed parked on the road. Even though it is trite that the jurisdiction of Courts to interfere with departmental proceedings is extremely limited yet in a case like this where the facts are so stark. It would be an abdication of judicial responsibility to hold that no succor can be given to a person who has been punished only because he had the gumption to proceed against a powerful person. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of punishment of reverting the petitioner from the post of Head Constable to Constable is set aside. The petitioner shall also be entitled to all the consequential benefits to which he is entitled. ( AJAY TEWARI ) JUDGE May 28, 2009 ashish