IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 11152 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : JULY 28, 2009 SANTOKH SINGH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. SK Bawa, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing orders dated 2.8.2006, 4.1.2007, 25.5.2007 and 3.2.2009, Annexures P-3 and P-5 to P-7, respectively. The petitioner, working as a Head Constable and posted at Police Radio, Ludhiana, while on duty, on 5.5.2004, went to Police Station Sadar, Ludhiana and raised a demand for liquor from Rajinder Singh, Moharrir Head Constable, and Harjas Singh, Operator Head Constable, Civil Writ Petition No. 11152 of 2009 2 Radio Sadar, Ludhiana. Later on, the petitioner demanded poppy husk. When the said persons refused to give him the same, the petitioner threatened them. The charge alleged against the petitioner was that he had left his place of duty, visited Police Station Sadar, Ludhiana and raised the demand, which was in violation of the Punjab Employees Conduct Rules, which indicated indiscipline and carelessness. Be that as it may, the petitioner was proceeded against in departmental proceedings. Inquiry report dated 30.1.2006 has been placed on record as Annexure P-11. The Inquiry Officer has drawn the conclusion/opinion in the following terms:- “After thoroughly perusing the attached statements of prosecution witnesses with the departmental enquiry, the written reply submitted by delinquent and after conducting detailed enquiry, I reached at the conclusion that the delinquent Head Constable Santokh Singh during h is night duty on 5.5.04 at 9.45 P.M. after going to Police Station Sadar from Radio Control, Ludhiana, had demanded a bottle of English Wine and poppy husk from MHC Rajinder Singh and H.C. Harjas Singh 1628/W, on their refusal, he had threatened them. Upon which the concerned S.H.O. for taking taking action wrote through Circle Officer. AT that time the delinquent submitted in writing to apology him for his mistake. In his reply he told that on committing above mistake, regarding apology him he had written under the pressure of S.H.O. and S.D.C. and due to illness of my son at that time I was mentally upset. Due to pressure, he could have bring the same into the knowledge of higher authorities at that time. He has submitted baseless pleas in his reply, due to which Civil Writ Petition No. 11152 of 2009 3 while not admitting with his reply, on the basis of concerned documents, witnesses, he is held guilty for the charge regarding the demand of liquor, poppy husk and threatening.” After considering the departmental inquiry report, vide order (Annexure P-3), the Superintendent of Police, Computer and Telecommunication, Punjab, has not imposed the extreme punishment of dismissal, rather, one year's service has been ordered to be forfeited. It has further been provided that the same would affect the ensuing annual increment of the petitioner. While passing the order (Annexure P-3), past record/antecedents of the petitioner have also been considered. At various points in time, for various misconducts, the petitioner had been censured 5 times. It seems that the petitioner filed an appeal, which has been dealt with by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Computer and Telecommunication, Punjab, and has been dismissed vide order (Annexure P-5). The petitioner, thereafter, approached the Inspector General of Police, Computer and Telecommunication, Punjab, who, having considered the conduct of the petitioner in detail, did not interfere and approved of the earlier orders, vide order (Annexure P-6). The petitioner, thereafter, approached the Director General of Police, Punjab, who has also dismissed the petition of the petitioner vide order (Annexure P-7). Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is very harsh. Earlier punishments were only Civil Writ Petition No. 11152 of 2009 4 censure and the duration of the punishment was 6 months and, therefore, the same should not have been taken into account. I have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. While considering the antecedents of the petitioner, the opinion formulated is only in regard to the punishment. The misconduct of the petitioner has been proved after regular inquiry. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out that principles of natural justice have not been followed or that the procedure laid down in law has not been adhered to. In such circumstances, I do not find any reason to judicially review the action of the respondents. A perusal of the document (Annexure P-10) further shows that the petitioner had admitted his fault with an undertaking that he would not do any such act in future. In view of the above, I am satisfied that the petitioner has indulged in misconduct for which he has been punished. The punishment in itself is commensurate with the charges proved. No ground for interference is made out. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. July 28, 2009 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?