LPA No. 963 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 963 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 05, 2011 Head Constable Som Nath No. 883 …Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Amit Jhanji, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Addl. A.G., Haryana 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? yes 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment dated 07.12.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that no link could be established between enquiry proceedings followed by punishment orders dated 04.09.2010 (P-3) and 04.11.2010 (P-5) and Annual Confidential Report dated 05.08.2010 (P-6) (for short 'ACR'), doubting the integrity of the appellant-petitioner. It is appropriate to mention that the appellant-petitioner had approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition relatable to the instant appeal with a prayer for quashing three months' notice for compulsory retirement dated 18.09.2010 (P- 7) and order of punishment inflicting stoppage of five increments LPA No. 963 of 2011 (O&M) -2- with cumulative effect passed by the appellate authority on 04.11.2010 (P-5). The learned Single Judge on the basis of ACR dated 05.08.2010 (P-6) upheld the notice of three months for compulsory retirement of the petitioner dated 18.09.2010 (P-7) and also repelled the contention that there is connection between ACR recorded on 05.08.2010 (P-6) for the period from 28.08.2009 to 31.03.2010 and the enquiry report which had lead to passing of orders of punishment. However, the learned Single Judge did not express any opinion on the punishment inflicting stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect on the appellant. 2. The appellant had been working on the post of Head Constable in respondent-State of Haryana. When he was posted as Head Constable Moharar, P.S. Parao (Ambala), a departmental enquiry was conducted against him alongwith others police officials alleging that he had verified 44 forms of persons unauthorisedly and illegally who were seeking issuance of gate pass for entry of their vehicles in Indian Oil Corporation Depot of Ambala Cantt. The enquiry officer reversed the findings in his eqnuiry report (P-2) against the appellant-petitioner and found him guilty. It is appropriate to mention that a report of Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban was also obtained to tally to tally the sample signature of the appellant-petitioner with the signature on 44 forms. A show cause notice was followed by the order of reversion from the post of Head Constable to that of Constable issued on 14.09.2010 (P-5). On appeal the order of reversion was converted to that of stoppage of LPA No. 963 of 2011 (O&M) -3- five increments with cumulative effect on 04.11.2010 (P-5). On the other hand the overall assessment of the appellant-petitioner had also been reflected in ACR dated 05.08.2010 (P-6). 3. Mr. Amit Jhanji, learned counsel for the appellant- petitioner has argued that the enquiry report dated 29.06.2010 (P-2) is entirely based on the opinion of Forensic Science Laboratory (for brevity 'FSL') tendered on 11.06.2010. Referring to the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory dated 11.06.2010 (P-8), learned counsel has invited our attention to opinion of the Laboratory at item No. 5 which relates to the appellant-petitioner. According to the aforesaid report, comparison of specimen signatures with the signature on the verification form were found to be incomparable. In other words, the signatures on 44 verification forms were not that of the appellant-petitioner. Charges against the appellant was that he had issued 44 verification forms allowing preparation for passes for entry of vehicles in Indian Oil Depot, Ambala Cantt. It has accordingly been submitted that in the absence of signatures of the appellant-petitioner on the passes for entry into Indian Oil Depot, Ambala Cantt, the charges cannot be deemed to be established as it is case of no evidence. Learned counsel has drawn our attention to the order of the appellate authority dated 04.11.2010 (P-5) wherein the appellate authority, namely, Inspector General of Police, Ambala Range, Ambala Cantt has noted that it was exemptee Head Constable Lal Chand who was indulging in wrong verification and as per report of the FSL and PWs and DWs, there is no direct linkage of LPA No. 963 of 2011 (O&M) -4- the appellant-petitioner. Yet the appellate authority under the garb of exercising power and taking lenient view, inflicted the punishment of stoppage of annual grade five increments with permanent effect by modifying order of reversion from the post of HC to that of Constable. 4. Mr. Aman Chaudhary, learned State counsel has, however, submitted that the notice for compulsory retirement served on 14.09.2010 (P-3) cannot be questioned by the appellant- petitioner because it is based on the ACR dated 05.08.2010 (P-6). According to learned State counsel, the report has indicated that he is an indisciplined officer and his integrity is doubtful and that he cannot be relied upon. It reflects overall assessment of the officer and therefore, there is no relationship between ACR and the enquiry proceedings because ACR represent the over all working of the officer whereas enquiry was the finding on one particular incident. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Davinder Singh v. State of Haryana and others (LPA No. 362 of 2011 decided on 11.05.2011) and argued that one entry of integrity doubtful is sufficient to retire an employee compulsorily especially in police force. Referring to the observation made in the aforesaid judgment, it has been submitted that an employee cannot insist on disclosing of material which has prompted such ACR. Likewise an employee cannot question the objectivity for entry of integrity doubtful. LPA No. 963 of 2011 (O&M) -5- 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the notice of three months for compulsory retirement issued on 18.09.2010 (P-7) does not suffer from any legal infirmity because it is based on the ACR dated 05.08.2010 (P-6), which disclose the following facts and data: “1. Discipline : Indiscipline. 2. Integrity : Doubtful 3. Reliability : Un-reliable 4. General remarks : Below Average.” 6. We also agree with the learned Single Judge that there cannot be relationship between the aforesaid ACR dated 05.08.2010 (P-6) and the aforesaid incidence of issuing 44 verification forms for the purposes of issuing the entry passes. 7. However, on the other issue that enquiry report dated 29.06.2010 (P-2) is not sustainable in the eyes of law, we find substantial merit in the contention of Mr. Amit Jhanji, learned counsel for the appellant. We are of the view that the same is not based on any evidence. To a pointed query by the Bench, learned State counsel could not point out any other evidence against the appellant except the report of FSL dated 11.06.2010 (P-8). The basis of the finding of the enquiry officer in the enquiry report dated 29.06.2010 (P-2) is the report of the FSL dated 11.06.2010 (P-8). Report of the FSL does not support the charges as in respect of the appellant-petitioner, it clearly says as under: “Opinion-5 On inter-se comparison of specimen LPA No. 963 of 2011 (O&M) -6- signatures marked S6 (dated 10.11.09) with admitted signatures marked A115 (of the year 2009), A116 to A148 (of the year 2007) reveals that all these signatures are freely written, show inter-se consistency in the execution of character/ (s) and their combination of characters among themselves. The specimens marked S5 (dated 25.01.2010) are in the form of initial. The questioned signatures marked Q8, Q9 (dated 02.01.2008) are in the form of initial and are freely written. (A) Comparison of specimens marked S5 with questioned signatures in the red enclosed part marked Q8, Q9 shows that the pattern of specimen signatures marked S5 is different from the pattern of questioned signatures marked Q8 and Q9, technically both the pattern of signatures are not inter-se comparable. (Emphasis added). 8. The aforesaid opinion expressed with regard to the verification form issued by the appellant-petitioner would not leave any manner of doubt that he, in fact, had not issued and signed those verification forms. The oral evidence adduced in the form of various PWs has not supported the charges as per conceded position by the learned Additional Advocate General. Therefore, the findings LPA No. 963 of 2011 (O&M) -7- against the appellant-petitioner with regard to erroneous verification of application form cannot be sustained because there is no evidence and findings are laconic. The aforesaid conclusion is also supported by the order of the appellate authority dated 04.11.2010, which reads as under: “I have gone through the appeal, departmental eqnuiry file and other relevant record of the appellant. The appellant was also summoned to appear before the undersigned on 02.11.10. I have heard the appellant personally. During personal hearing, his plea was that he was not posted at IOC depot. EHC Lal Chand was doing wrong verification. As per report of FSL & PWs and DWs there is no direct linkage of petitioner. Keeping in view length of service and past record while taking lenient view I reduce the punishment of reversion from the rank of HC to that of stoppage of five annual increments with permanent effect.” (Emphasis added) 9. Even the Appellate Authority has accepted that it was a case of no evidence. Once the aforesaid findings are recorded by the FSL and the Appellate Authority then conclusion is obvious. The findins that the appellant-petitioner is guity of charges are laconic and have no leg to stand. Accordingly, the punishment order is vitiated. 10. For all the reasons aforementioned, this appeal is partly LPA No. 963 of 2011 (O&M) -8- allowed. The punishment of stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect inflicted on the appellant is hereby quashed. However, notice of compulsory retirement and his subsequent retirement is upheld. The ACR of integrity doubtful dated 05.08.2010 (P-6) is sufficient to pass such an order as has been held by a Division Bench in Davinder Singh's case (supra). The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE September 05, 2011 Atul