IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.12490 of 2008. Date of decision: 26.05.2011. _______________________________________________________ Bhupinder Singh. ….. Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. & Ors. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms.Ruma Kaushik, Addl.A.G. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). The learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his submissions to this extent only that the punishment order dated 08.03.1999 Annexure A-1 and the appellate order dated 04.09.2003 Annexure A-2 and order dated 23.10.2004 passed in revision are not in consonance with Punjab Police Rules 13.2, 16.5 (for short ‘PPR’) and Fundamental Rules 29(2) (for short FR). It has been submitted that at the relevant time ‘PPR’ were applicable in the State of H.P. 2. The precise submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that while passing punishment order, appellate order and revisional order, the authorities have not clarified in the orders that after the period of two years whether the increments will be restored to the petitioner or not. The connected submission is whether it will amount postponing of the future increments. The learned Additional Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes 2 Advocate General has submitted that orders dated 08.03.1999, 04.09.2003 and 23.10.2004 have been passed by Authorities in accordance with law, no fault can be found with these orders. 3. PPR 13.2 is as follows:- ”13.2. Power to grant increments. – Increments of pay of all upper and lower subordinates shall be granted, when due, by Superintendents, provided that an increment may be withheld as a formal punishment in accordance with the rules contained in Chapter XVI. The withholding of increments shall be entered in the order book in the case of constables and head constables, and in the case of Inspector, Sergeants, Sub-Inspectors, and Assistant Sub-Inspectors published in the Police Gazette. In the case of members of the clerical cadre, increments shall be granted or withheld, by a formal order in each case, by the head of the office concerned. When an efficiency bar is placed at any stage or stages in a time –scale, it shall be passed only on the authority of a specific order by an officer competent to withhold an increment in the time-scale concerned. In the case of Sergeants and Sub-Inspectors the sanction of the Inspector-General and Deputy Inspector-General, respectively, is required.” PPR 16.5 is as follows:- “16.5. Stoppage of increments. The increment of a police officer on a time-scale may be withheld as a punishment. The order must state definitely the period for which the increment is withheld, and whether the postponement shall have the effect of postponing future increments. The detailed orders regarding the grant and stoppage of increments are contained in rule 13.2. (2) Approved service for increment may be forfeited, either temporarily or permanently, and such 3 forfeiture may entail the deferment of an increment or increments or a reduction in pay. The order must state whether the forfeiture of approved service is to be permanent; or, if not, the period for which it has been forfeited. (3) Reinstatement on the expiry of a period fixed under sub-rule (1) or (2) above shall be conditional upon good conduct in the interval, but, if it is desired under this rule not to reinstated an officer, a separate order shall be recorded, after the officer concerned has been given opportunity to show cause whey his reinstatement should not be deferred, and the period for which such order shall have effect, shall be stated. Rules regarding the method of recording punishments under this rule in seniority rolls are contained in Chapter X.” FR 29 is as follows: “F.R. 29. (1) If a Government servant is reduced as a measure of penalty to a lower stage in his time-scale, the authority ordering such reduction shall state the period for which it shall be effective and whether, on restoration, the period of reduction shall operate to postpone future increments and, if so, to what extent. (2) If a Government servant is reduced as a measure of penalty to a lower service, grade or post or to a lower time-scale, the authority ordering the reduction may or may not specify, the period for which the reduction shall be effective; but where the period is specified, that authority shall also state whether, on restoration, the period of reduction shall operate to postpone future increments and, if so, to what extent.” 4 4. The perusal of the punishment order dated 08.03.1999 makes it clear that the punishing authority had ordered that the period of two years approved service for the purpose of grant of annual increments to Bhupinder Singh Constable No. 728 shall stand forfeited. This order has been affirmed in the appeal as well as by the Director General of Police in revision. It has not been stated in the order dated 08.03.1999 whether after two years increments to the petitioner would be restored or it would postpone the future increments. The order dated 08.03.1999 is not in consonance with the ‘PPR’ 13.2, 16.5 read with FR 29(2). The operative part of punishment order dated 08.03.1999, affirmed in appeal on 04.09.2003 and further affirmed in revision by Director General of Police vide order dated 23.10.2004 is not sustainable. In these circumstances, the orders dated 08.03.1999, appellate order dated 04.09.2003 and order in revision dated 23.10.2004 are set aside with a direction to respondent No.4 to consider the case of the petitioner for passing appropriate punishment order in accordance with ‘PPR’ 13.2, 16.5 and FR 29(2) within a period of one month. The petition is disposed of. May 26, 2011 (Kuldip Singh), ( krt) Judge.