IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 11770/2008 Reserved on: 4.7.2011 Decided on: 12.7.2011 __________________________________________________ Champat Rai. …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. …Respondents. ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioner : Mr. B.C. Negi, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. A.G. with Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. A.G. ___________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Petitioner was posted as a Constable in Shimla District and was undergoing coaching in wrestling at Bilaspur. He was sent to Nallagarh on 20.10.1988 to participate in wrestling competition. Petitioner instead of going to Nalagarh stayed at Bilaspur. During the same night at about 9.30 P.M., a scuffle took place between college students and local youth of Bilaspur. When the police reached the spot, petitioner 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 alongwith 50-60 college students was found indulging in heavy pelting of stones on the police party from the roof of the college hostel. One constable sustained injury due to stone pelting. F.I.R. was registered against the petitioner and students vide F.I.R. No. 134/1988 dated 20.10.1988, for offences punishable, under sections 147, 353, 332 and 336 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner was also arrested and bailed out on 23.10.1988. In these circumstances, a decision was taken to institute regular departmental inquiry against the petitioner. Respondent No.4 ordered holding of regular departmental inquiry vide order dated 4.11.1988. Petitioner was served with a summary of allegations. The prosecution witnesses were examined in his presence. Thereafter, regular charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 10.4.1990. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 5.3.1991. Petitioner filed reply to the same. The Disciplinary Authority after taking into consideration the reply filed by the petitioner imposed penalty of “forfeiture of five years of permanent service permanently” on 24.4.1991. Petitioner preferred an 3 appeal before respondent No.3. He rejected the same on 31.7.1993. Petition preferred to respondent No.2 was also dismissed by a detailed order on 10.12.1993. 2. Mr. B.C. Negi has vehemently argued that there is violation of principles of natural justice while holding the departmental inquiry against the petitioner. He then contended that the penalty imposed upon his client is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. He lastly contended that the statements of the witnesses were not recorded in presence of his client before the charge-sheet was served upon him. According to him, his client was not supplied with the list of witnesses. . 3. Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General has strenuously argued that there is no violation of principles of natural justice. According to him, the petitioner has been dealt with leniently. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 5. Petitioner belongs to a disciplined police force. He was directed by the superior authorities to participate in the wresting competition at Nalagarh. He did not obey the order and remained at Bilaspur. 4 He was arrested on 23.10.1988 and was bailed out. The decision was taken to institute disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner on 11.4.1988. It has come in the reply that the statements of the prosecution were examined in the presence of the petitioner before resorting to charge-sheet against the petitioner. He was given an opportunity to produce the witnesses. He had failed to do so. He filed reply to the show cause notice on 5.3.1991 and thereafter the penalty was imposed upon the petitioner. The appeal and petition preferred by the petitioner have been rejected by respondent No.3 and 2 on 31.7.1991 and 10.12.1993, respectively by a speaking and reasoned order. Mr. B.C. Negi could not point out any infirmity in the orders passed by the Appellate Authority and by respondent No.2. 6. Mr. B.C. Negi has also argued that an F.I.R. was registered against his client bearing F.I.R. No.134/1988 on 20.10.1988 and the prosecution was permitted to be withdrawn by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 24.5.1990. The withdrawal of the prosecution case by the learned A.P.P. on 24.5.1990 has not absolved the liability of the petitioner as far as disciplinary proceedings are 5 concerned. In disciplinary proceedings, the case is required to be proved on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and in criminal proceedings; the case is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. In view of this, the disciplinary proceedings had rightly been continued against the petitioner. The same have been held in accordance with law. There is no violation of rule 16.8 of the Punjab Police Rules, as argued by Mr. B.C. Negi. 7. Petitioner, as noticed above, belongs to the disciplined force. He had no business to pelt stones on the police party, which had arrived at the scene of occurrence to control the situation on 20.10.1988. Accordingly, the penalty, i.e. “forfeiture of five years of permanent service permanently” imposed upon the petitioner is neither disproportionate nor harsh and as such this Court will not interfere in the same. 8. Consequently, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 12.7. 2011*awasthi*