IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 12054/2008. Reserved on: 27.8.2010. Decided on:14.9. 2010 ______________________________________________ Ram Pal. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1Yes For the petitioner : Mr. S.R. Badhan, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. Advocate General. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Petitioner was posted alongwith with other personnel on security duty at the official residence of Chief Minister Himachal Pradesh at Oak Over. On 18.2.2002 at about 4.10 P.M., a suspected person trespassed into the premises of the residence of the Chief Minister. He was not apprehended by the petitioner, who was posted at Post No.4, as Sentry. The summary of allegations was served upon the petitioner by Sh. Hira Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police on 23.4.2002. Thereafter fresh summary of charges was served upon the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes petitioner after the change of Inquiry Officer exactly on the same charges on 30.7.2002. He filed reply to the same. The Inquiry Officer recorded the statements of fifteen witnesses and submitted the report to the Disciplinary Authority on 1.8.2002. In sequel thereto, a show cause notice was served upon the petitioner on 14.8.2002. He filed reply to the same. The Disciplinary Authority on 26.10.2002 imposed the penalty of forfeiture of two years of service permanently for the purpose of future increments. Petitioner preferred statutory appeal against the same. It was rejected by the Appellate Authority on 2.9.2003. The mercy petition preferred by the petitioner was dismissed on 10.6.2004 and the revision/review was also dismissed by the competent authority on 9.11.2004. 2. Mr. S.R. Badhan has strenuously argued that the impugned Annexures are against the principles of law and facts. He then contended that the penalty imposed upon his client is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct, which is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He finally contended that the Inquiry Officer has not returned findings on the basis of the evidence brought on record by the parties. 3. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has supported the impugned orders and has strenuously argued that the petitioner was posted to guard the official residence of the Chief Minister, however, he was remiss in the discharge of his duties by not apprehending the intruder. 4. I have heard the leaned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully. 5. Mr. S.R. Badhan has failed to point out any shortcomings/deficiencies in the inquiry report dated 1.8.2002. The Inquiry Officer has examined as many as fifteen witnesses. Petitioner was given ample opportunity to defend himself. He was issued show cause notice after the receipt of inquiry report on 14.8.2002. He filed reply to the same. The Disciplinary Authority after considering the reply has imposed the penalty upon the petitioner, as discussed hereinabove. The order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is speaking/reasoned. Similarly, the orders passed by the Appellate Authority in mercy petition and revision/review dated 10.6.2004 and 9.11.2004, respectively are also speaking/reasoned. The contentions raised by the petitioner have been addressed to by the authorities in depth. In fact, the person, who had entered into the premises of the residence of Chief Minister (Oak Over) was apprehended and was convicted by the competent court of law. There is no merit in the contention of Mr. S.R. Badhan that the petitioner was not negligent in the discharge of his duties. He was posted to protect the official residence of the Chief Minister. He should have apprehended the intruder instead of informing his colleagues to apprehend the intruder. There is also no merit in the contention of Mr. S.R. Badhan that his client could not leave the sentry post. In the present case, the intruder had trespassed in the official residence of the Chief Minister at 4.10 P.M. It was the duty cast upon the petitioner to apprehend him. He had merely sought the help of his colleagues to apprehend him. The person appointed on sentry duty is supposed to be alert and he was required to take effective steps to apprehend the trespasser/intruder. 6. In these circumstances, the penalty of forfeiture of two years of service permanently for the purpose of future increments imposed upon the petitioner is neither disproportionate nor harsh. 7. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge 14.9. 2010 *awasthi*