IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP (T) 8365 of 2008 Decided on: August 4, 2011 Mohd. Iqbal Khan and another ..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others .. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners : Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioners had been working as Head Constables in Police Station, Paonta Sahib, in the year 1997. On 24.2.1997, information was received at Police Station, Paonta Sahib, that a tractor trolley, loaded with Khair Wood, was proceedings towards Katha Factory, Miserwala. Entry was made in the Rojnamcha. Present petitioners, in their capacity as Head Constables, were deputed to intercept the tractor trolley and to seize the Khair Wood, being carried therein. 2. Petitioners allegedly went to Katha factory at Miserwala and noticed that Katha wood was being unloaded from the tractor trolley, in question. They, however, took Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? É2É no action against those, who carried the Khair wood to the factory or against the owner of the factory, because they allegely received bribe of `14,000/- from the owner of the factory, namely Sudershan alias Chhotu. 3. Petitioners were charge-sheeted for the aforesaid misconduct. Inquiry was conducted by Sunder Lal, Dy. S.P., Headquarters Nahan. He submitted report, copy Annexure A-7, per which though there was no direct evidence of the petitioners having received bribe of `14,000/, yet the evidence on record established, beyond doubt, that two Head Constables had gone to the factory of Sudershan Singh alias Chhotu at Miserwala and when they reached there, Khair wood was being unloaded from the tractor trolley, in question. Inquiry Officer concluded that the two petitioners were guilty of not taking action against the factory owner as also the persons, who carried the Khair wood in a tractor trolley to that factory and letting them go unpunished. 4. On the basis of inquiry report, copy Annexure A7, petitioners have been visited with the penalty of forfeiture of three years service, permanently, vide order, copy Annexure A-12 A, which is dated 28.7.2000. 5. Appeal filed by the petitioners to the Director General of Police stands dismissed, vide order dated 27.9.2001, copy Annexure A-15. Petitioners filed an Original Application before the then HP State Administrative É3É Tribunal. On the abolition of that Tribunal, matter has come to this Court. 6. Respondents, in their reply, have stated that petitioners were found guilty of act of misconduct of letting the criminals go scot free, though the specific charge of their taking bribe did not stand established and, so, they have rightly been held guilty of the aforesaid act of misconduct and visited with the penalty of forfeiture of three years service, permanently. 7. Learned counsel, representing the petitioner, has made only one submission viz., the charge, as framed against the petitioner, having not been proved, punitive action taken by the Appointing Authority, vide Annexure A- 12A, is not justifiable and, therefore, the said order as also the order of Director General of Police, copy Annexure A-14, dismissing petitioners’ appeal, are liable to be quashed. 8. I have been taken through the report of Inquiry Officer, which is Annexure A-7. Evidence of the witnesses, examined during the course of inquiry, has been referred to in the report verbatim. Inquiry Officer has relied upon the testimony of four witnesses, to whom the Khair wood belonged and who carried the same to Katha factory, to hold that the petitioner had gone to the factory and seen Katha wood being unloaded from the trolley of the tractor. They are Muhktiar Ahmad, Ashraf Ali, Sadiq Ali and Alias. All the four testified, in no uncertain terms, that they had É4É purchased the Katha wood, in question, from some Upites for `10,000/- and carried the same to the factory of Sudershan alias Chhotu at Miserwala, within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Paonta Sahib and that when the last log was being unloaded the two petitioners, one of whom was carrying a fire-arm, reached the factory, and went to the room of the owner of the factory from where they came out after one hour. They also testified that the owner of the factory told them that since the Katha wood was of illicit origin, he had to pay `14000/- / `15000/- to the petitioners and the aforesaid amount of money had been deducted from the value of Katha Wood, which was calculated at `18500/-. 9. Examination-in-chief as also the cross- examination of the above named witnesses has been referred to in the report verbatim. Nothing surfaced in the cross-examination of these witnesses, suggesting that the two petitioners had not gone to the factory or had not seen the last log of Khair wood being unloaded from the tractor trolley. 10. Petitioners not only did not take any action against the above named witnesses, who carried the khair wood to the factory as also the owner of the factory and, thus, committed the act of misconduct of not performing their duty of taking cognizance of a cognizable offence, but also screened the above named persons and committed É5É another act of misconduct, which amounts to an offence, punishable under Indian Penal Code. Reference regarding offence has been made only to highlight the gravity of the act of misconduct, committed by the petitioner. Not only this, they made a false report on return to the Police Station that they could not locate the tractor trolley loaded with khair wood, which they were deputed to intercept and seize. 11. It is true that there was no specific charge of the act of misconduct of letting the criminals go scot-free or of screening them, but implicitly both these acts of misconduct are included in the charge that the petitoiners let the offenders, in a case of illicit transportation and sale of khair wood, go unreported by charging bribe from them. For the foregoing reasons, submission made on behalf of the petitioners is rejected. Order of punishment of the petitioners, based on the aforesaid Inquiry Report, therefore, calls for no interference. Petition is dismissed. August 4, 2011 (ss) (Surjit Singh), J.