IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No. 24 of 2011 Date of decision: 18.03.2011 Liaq Ram & another …. Appellants Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …. Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. For the appellants: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General and Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General. Justice V.K. Ahuja, J. (Oral): CMP(M) No 41 of 2011: Heard. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the application stands disposed of. LPA No. 24 of 2011: This is a L.P.A. filed by the appellants under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent Appeal Act of Delhi High Court, as is applicable in the State of Himachal Pradesh, against the judgment dated 19.7.2010 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court in CWP(T) No. 13569 of 2008, wherein the writ petition filed by the appellants has been dismissed. 2. Briefly stated, undisputed facts of the case are that the appellants were serving the Police Department of the State. They were deputed to escort an under-trial to the Court of Additional Chief 2 Judicial Magistrate, Paonta Sahib, on 15.9.2003. On the pretext of using toilet, the said under-trial ran away. The appellants were charge sheeted for having allowed the said under-trial to flee from their custody. A show cause notice was issued to the appellants, hereinafter also referred to as the petitioners, before initiation of disciplinary proceedings. The petitioners replied to the same and the disciplinary proceedings were conducted as against them. The Inquiry Officer found the charges to be true. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioners before imposing the penalty, which directed stoppage of one increment. The petitioners preferred an appeal before the appropriate authority, which was turned down by the order dated 31.12.2004. 3. The petitioners challenged the order before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single found that the petitioners had been found negligent in not reporting the matter immediately to the authorities and they had allowed the under-trial to flee while they were supposed to escort him back from the Court to prison. The petition filed challenging the imposition of penalty was dismissed. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 5. It is not disputed that on inquiry the charges leveled against the petitioners were found to be true that they were negligent in performing their duties. Another observation made by the learned Single Judge was that the under-trial had fled on 15.9.2003 and FIR was recorded only on 16.9.2003 at 11.50 A.M. The Inquiry Officer had found the petitioners negligent. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were not negligent since while the petitioners kept standing outside the door, the under-trial 3 removed the window on the other side and fled away. There were two persons who were escorting the under-trial and it was for them to see as to how they should take steps that the under-trial did not get an opportunity to escape. The findings of fact recorded by the Inquiry Officer that the petitioners were negligent cannot be looked into again by this Court by reappraisal of the evidence which is not permissible. Thus, there is no dispute in regard to the findings holding the petitioners guilty of negligence. 6. Coming to the order of the disciplinary authority directing stoppage of only one increment, which order was upheld by the appellate authority, the learned Single Judge has clearly observed that the petitioners had failed to prove as to how the impugned order is erroneous, illegal or disproportionate to the misconduct. The disciplinary authority keeping in view the charge as against the petitioners had held that the order of stoppage of one increment was the sufficient penalty, which order was affirmed on an appeal. No infirmity could be pointed out in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge calling for an interference by this Court and as such, the L.P.A. is dismissed accordingly, with no order as to cots. (Justice Kurian Juseph), Chief Justice ( V.K. Ahuja ), March 18, 2011 Judge (BSS) 4