IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 1926 of 2011 Reserved on: 12.5.2011 Date of decision: 20.05.2011 Shakti Prakash …. Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others …. Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. For the petitioner: Mr. Ashok Chaudhary, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General. Justice V.K. Ahuja, J.: The petitioner by way of the present writ petition has assailed the order passed by respondent No. 3, vide which on the basis of an inquiry conducted into the conduct of the petitioner, a punishment of “two years forfeiture of approved service with permanent effect” was awarded to the petitioner. 2. Brief facts of the case necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner joined service as constable. Then he was promoted and ultimately he was working as Inspector of Police and was posted as S.H.O. Police Station, Indora. It was alleged that on 16.9.2008, complainant Usha Devi came to Police station, Indora, met the S.H.O., alleging incident of kidnapping of two girls at Mirthal in Punjab followed by rape of girls near Kathgarh Forest in Himachal 2 Pradesh. It was alleged as against the petitioner that the complainant had gone to register a case with Police Post Nangal-Bhor, Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur, Punjab, but the Punjab Police refused to register the case on the ground that the rape was not committed in the territorial jurisdiction of Punjab. It was also alleged that once the complainant had come to Police Station, Indora, the petitioner being the S.H.O. did not take cognizance on the complaint and also did not make any entry in the Rojnamcha and told them to register a case with Punjab Police. It was alleged that the petitioner had misbehaved with the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant met the Superintendent of Police, Kangra, on 17.9.2008 and on whose directions, FIR was ultimately registered by the petitioner. 3. A departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner. A formal charge-sheet was issued to him and on conclusion of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer, Addl. Superintendent of Police, Kangra, submitted his report holding the petitioner guilty of the charges framed against him. 4. A notice was issued to the petitioner before imposing the penalty of two years forfeiture of service by respondent No. 3 and accordingly, he passed the impugned order Annexure P-4 dated 27.4.2009, which is under challenge before us. After that, an appeal was also preferred before the Inspector General of Police, Armed Police & Training, H.P., which was dismissed by him vide his order Annexure P-6 dated 19.8.2009. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 6. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner were that the complainant did approach the S.H.O., but 3 before he could record the FIR, the complainant accompanied by the Pradhan had left the place. The complainant and two daughters had not come to the Police Station, but only the Pradhan had come and it was advised that since the occurrence had taken place in the State of Punjab, they should approach the Punjab Police. There are findings of fact recorded by the Inquiry Officer, confirmed by the Appellate Authority, that the petitioner had not registered the FIR, though he had been approached as per the evidence by the complainant party to register a case of a serious nature regarding rape with the girls, having been committed within the State of Himachal Pradesh. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioner who had put in more than 25 years service and was an experienced Police Officer, was required to register the case, once an offence of serious nature had been reported to him to have been committed within the State of Himachal Pradesh. Even if the said offence was committed outside the State of Himachal Pradesh, he should have lodged a rapat and forwarded the same to the concerned Police Station and the allegations are that the rape was committed within the State of Himachal Pradesh, but the petitioner showed his insensitivity to register the case, not behaved as a responsible officer and did not register any case and a false plea had been taken that the complainant party did not come inside the Police Station or so. The findings of fact recorded by the Inquiry Officer do not require reappraisal by this Court and there cannot be any reappraisal of the evidence by this Court. The only question that can be considered by this Court as to whether the punishment awarded can be said to be excessive keeping in view the charges proved as against the petitioner. 7. It is clear from the above discussion that the charges proved against the petitioner were of serious nature and no leniency 4 could have been shown to the petitioner in such a matter for having not guarded the interest of the minors or a helpless woman whose two daughters were allegedly raped and the petitioner showed his insensitivity in not registering the case and as such, the punishment awarded of stoppage of two years forfeiture approved service cannot be said to be too harsh calling for an interference by this Court. 8. In view of the above discussion, we accordingly hold that there is no merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioner, which is dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous application, if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice ( V.K. Ahuja ), May 20, 2011 Judge (BSS) 5