Regular Second Appeal No.2684 of 2010 (O & M ) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: February 23 , 2011. Regular Second Appeal No.2684 of 2010 (O & M ) Head Constable Ramji Lal ….Appellant Versus State of Haryana and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 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. S.N. Yadav, Advocate, for the appellant. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Civil Misc. No.8085-C of 2010 For the reasons stated in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed and the delay of 85 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Regular Second Appeal No.2684 of 2010. Regular Second Appeal No.2684 of 2010 (O & M ) Plaintiff Head Constable Ramji Lal is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below whereby his suit for declaration to the effect that the order dated 15.5.2007 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Fatehabad (defendant-respondent No.2) whereby three increments of the plaintiff-appellant were ordered to be stopped with temporary effect was wrong, against law, non-speaking order and was passed without affording opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff, has been dismissed. I have heard Mr. S.N. Yadav, Advocate, appearing for the appellant and have gone through the impugned judgments. The allegations against the plaintiff-appellant, who was working as a Head Constable, were that the file of case F.I.R. No. 262 dated 1.7.2004 under Sections 302/ 304-B/ 194/ 202/ 197/ 498-A/ 34/ 316/ 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Sadar Fatehabad, remained with the plaintiff-appellant for the period from 22.5.2006 to 12.9.2006 and he (plaintiff-appellant) being the Investigating Officer was duty bound to put up the file in the Court, but he did not do so. The plaintiff was charge sheeted. Regular Departmental Inquiry was held by Deputy Superintendent of Police, City Fatehabad, who held the plaintiff-appellant guilty of negligence in duty vide inquiry report Exhibit P.4. Thereafter, defendant-respondent No.2 issued a show cause notice (Exhibit D.6) to the plaintiff affording him an opportunity to file reply within fifteen days while exercising the discretion vested in him as the punishing authority. The plaintiff filed reply (Exhibit D.7) to defendant-respondent No.2, who, after hearing the plaintiff in person, imposed the punishment of withholding his three increments with temporary effect. The plaintiff filed appeal against the order passed by Regular Second Appeal No.2684 of 2010 (O & M ) defendant-respondent No.2. The appeal of the plaintiff was dismissed by the competent authority i.e Inspector General of Police, Hisar, Range, Hisar, on 21.8.2007 vide order Exhibit D.9. These facts show that the plaintiff was afforded sufficient opportunity of hearing at every stage. As stated above, Regular Departmental inquiry had been conducted by the officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police in which the plaintiff was held guilty of negligence. Learned counsel for the appellant, during the course of arguments, could not persuade me, by referring to any case law or by pointing out any material on record to show that the findings recorded by both the Courts below are not based on proper appreciation of evidence, to take a different view than the one taken by the said Courts. In the result, there is no substance in this appeal. The same is, accordingly, hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Dated: February 23, 2011. (MOHINDER PAL) ak JUDGE