HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 5794/2008 Date of Decision: June 21, 2010 Hari Ram ……. Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ….. Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the petitioner : Mr. K. D. Shreedhar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. R. K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr, R. M. Bisht, Dy. A. G.. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Petitioner was posted as Constable/V.H.F. Operator in Police Station, Arki. He noticed vehicle No.HP-14-3249 being unloaded near the country liquor vend at Piplughat. He asked the driver of the vehicle for the permit for transporting the liquor as also the documents of the vehicle. Petitioner was seen taking the documents along with the currency notes by the Sub Divisional Officer (C), Arki. While taking bribe petitioner was caught red handed, therefore, he allegedly fled away from the spot. He subsequently confessed his guilt before the Addl. Superintendent of Police on 19.1.1995. Preliminary inquiry was got conducted by the State and petitioner was put under suspension. 2. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. There is no dispute that the articles of charges were received by him. Petitioner filed a reply which did not find favour with the Disciplinary Authority and as such an Inquiry Officer was appointed. During the inquiry 2 petitioner was associated at all times. The Inquiry Officer being the Dy. Superintendent of Police (Headquarters), Solan held the petitioner guilty of having demanded Rs.6,000/- from the driver of the vehicle. This severally tarnished the image of the police. The Inquiry Officer also went into another charge of willful absence from job which charge also stood sufficiently proved. 3. The Disciplinary Authority served show cause notice dated 23.5.1995 proposing a penalty of permanent forfeiture of 5 years of service. Petitioner duly responded to the same and after due consideration thereof, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order dated 28.6.1995 imposing a penalty of permanent forfeitures of 5 years of approved period of service of the petitioner. There is no dispute that petitioner’s appeal stands dismissed in terms of order dated 25.8.1995. 4. Shockingly on the representation of the petitioner, the respondents reduced the penalty of permanent forfeiture of approved service from a period of 5 years to 2 years in terms of order dated 13.7.1998 (Annexure A-11). This however was rightly reviewed by the appropriate authority and the penalty imposed in terms of order dated 28.6.1995 stands as it is. 5. In this petition filed on 3.4.1999, petitioner has assailed the orders dated 28.6.1995, 25.8.1995 and 13.7.1998. 6. From the record it could not be pointed out as to how principles of natural justice causing prejudice to the petitioner have been violated by the respondents. Undisputedly petitioner was associated with the inquiry at all times. Inquiry report was supplied to him; show cause notice imposing proposed penalty was issued to him; he filed a response 3 thereto which was duly considered by the appropriate authority. Hence there cannot be any grievance on this ground. 7. Scope of interference by this Court in a writ jurisdiction is limited. This Court is not to sit on an appeal and go into sufficiency of the material placed on record before the Disciplinary Authority and appreciation thereof unless the order is perverse. In the instant case, no perversity could be pointed out from the record. 8. Petitioner had accepted the correctness of the inquiry report and the legality of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him by making a representation whereby the sentence of penalty was reduced. He did not agitate the issue before any forum between the years 1998 and 1999 till the time the authorities reviewed the decision of reducing the punishment of penalty. 9. For all the aforesaid reasons, I find no merit in the present petition and the same is accordingly dismissed ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. June 21, 2010 (rana)