IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) 14611 of 2008. Decided on: May 26, 2011. Rajinder Singh …Appellant Versus State of H.P. & others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner Ms. Sunita Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents Mr. J.S.Guleria, Asstt. A.G. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioner had been working as Head Constable in the Police Department in the year, 2003. He went on leave on 19.10.2003. On 26th and 27th October, 2003, when he was still on leave, he indulged in various acts of violence and use of criminal force. He and his brothers, who are employed as driver and conductor on a private bus, owned by petitioner’s wife, had pitched battles with a group of other bus operators, on the aforesaid two dates. Cases were registered against both the groups, at the instance of each other. Petitioner is alleged to have gone to Police Station at Arki at night and threatened the police officials and also indulged in rowdyism, when in the police station. A charge sheet was framed against him. Domestic inquiry was conducted and he was held guilty of the Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? - 2 - aforesaid acts of misconduct. His Disciplinary Authority, i.e. Superintendent of Police, Solan, visited him with the penalty of stoppage of two increments permanently. He also ordered that the period of his suspension, was not to be treated as duty period. Further, 11 days absence of the petitioner from duty, was ordered to be treated as non-duty period and 22 days leave was also ordered to be debited to his half pay leave account. Petitioner filed appeal against the order of Superintendent of Police to the DIG. DIG reduced the penalty from stoppage of two increments to one increment and upheld the rest of the order. Further appeal was filed before the DGP by the petitioner, which was dismissed. 2. Petitioner has challenged the order of penalty, as also order of treating the period of his suspension, as non duty period and non sanctioning of leave for 11 days and treating the same as absence from duty, but at the same time, debiting double the period in his half pay leave account. 3. In reply, it is stated that petitioner has rightly been punished, on account of acts of misconduct, which stood duly proved, during the course of domestic inquiry. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 5. Inquiry was conducted and the Inquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of the aforesaid acts of misconduct. Therefore, no fault can be found with the order of penalty of stoppage of one increment, as modified by the DIG. 6. As regards the order for treating the period of suspension, as non duty period, such an order could not have been passed, - 3 - without affording an opportunity to the petitioner, to show cause why such an order be not passed. Period of 11 days absence could also not have been treated as non duty period, because no charge was framed, with respect to the alleged absence against the petitioner, nor was any inquiry conducted by the Inquiry Officer into the alleged willful absence from duty. 7. Consequently, writ petition is disposed of, in the following manner: a) Order of the Disciplinary Authority, as affirmed by the Appellate Authority, with regard to treatment of the suspension period as non duty period, is quashed. Disciplinary Authority may, however, pass appropriate orders qua this aspect of the matter, after issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner. b) Order, with regard to absence of 11 days, is also quashed. Disciplinary Authority may pass appropriate orders with respect to the alleged unauthorized absence, for the aforesaid 11 days period, by observing the relevant disciplinary rules. c) Order of penalty of stoppage of one increment is lawful and hence the same is not interfered with. Writ petition is disposed of. May 26, 2011(PC) (Surjit Singh ), J.