CWP 656 of 2007. 20.3.2010 Present: Mr. Subhash Sharma, counsel for the petitioners. Mr. P.K.Sharma, Addl. AG, for the respondents. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order of the Administrative Tribunal dismissing the petition challenging the order of punishment of six years forfeiture of service imposed upon them after conduct of an inquiry, on the allegations that they were responsible for dereliction of duty as an under trial escaped from their custody while being escorted to the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners urges that according to Rule 16.24(i) of the Punjab Police Rules as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh, it was the Superintendent of Police who could have ordered the inquiry and not the Additional Superintendent of Police. This issue was decided by the Tribunal holding that since the Additional Superintendent of Police was entrusted with charge/ duty of the Superintendent of Police, Una, he was competent to exercise the powers of the Superintendent of Police. The second point urged by learned counsel for the petitioners is that a searching inquiry was entrusted to the Deputy -2- Superintendent of Police and regular inquiry was conducted by an officer of rank of District Inspector which was not proper as the regular inquiry was entrusted to a junior officer while searching inquiry was conducted by a senior officer. In these circumstances, it was but natural that the Deputy Superintendent of Police being superior in rank, the inquiry could not be fair as the findings of the Deputy Superintendent of Police could not be changed/ distinguished by the inquiry officer. We cannot accept the submission for the reasons that the ground inherent in this argument is that there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice. It is well settled that it is not the mere violation of the Principles of Natural Justice, but its consequences which have to be established. This point was neither urged in the reply to the charge sheet nor before the Appellate Authority. Even otherwise, it is not established on the record that the under-trial did not escape from the custody of the petitioners. It these circumstances, it is not appropriate for us to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India -3- in this case. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. Pending application(s) shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (Dev Darshan Sud), J. March 20, 2010 (PC) (Kuldip Singh), J.