IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 15033 of 2008. Reserved on : 08.09.2010. Decided on: 21.09.2010. __________________________________________________________ Susheel Chand. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner : Mr. Tarlok Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J.: Petitioner was appointed as Constable in respondent-department in the year 1984. He was promoted to the post of Head Constable in the month of July, 1990. The petitioner was despatched at 9.45 a.m. on 20.12.2004 vide daily diary report No.15 to take the custody of prisoner, Rajesh Kumar from Model Central Jail, Nahan and produce him before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat on 21.12.2004. The custody of the prisoner was taken on 20.12.2004 at 4.45 p.m. from the jail. The petitioner informed vide report No.46 police lines, Nahan at 11.35 p.m. on 20.12.2004 that the prisoner has escaped at 11.30 p.m. A case No.253 of 2004, dated 21.12.2004 under Section 224 of the Indian Penal Code was registered at Police Station, Nahan. Petitioner was put under 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - suspension. Departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner/ police officials on 22.12.2004. The charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner, to which he filed reply. In his final report, dated 21.11.2005, the Inquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of dereliction and negligence of duty. The Superintendent of Police agreed with the inquiry report and served the petitioner with notice regarding the proposed punishment of forfeiture of three years of service vide order dated 26.11.2005. The petitioner submitted reply to the same. The disciplinary authority, i.e. Superintendent of Police, Nahan awarded the penalty of forfeiture of one year of service permanently. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Southern Range. He accepted the appeal partly and the penalty of one year’s approved service on permanent basis was converted in the forfeiture of one year of service for the purpose of increment only. The petitioner had assailed this order by filing review petition before the Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh. The same was rejected by the Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh on 24.1.2007. 2. Mr. Tarlok Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the imposition of penalty is against the principles of law. He then contended that the penalty upon his client is disproportionate to the alleged mis-conduct. 3. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has supported the impugned orders passed by the competent authority. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. Mr. Tarlok Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that accused Rajesh Kumar was arrested within a few hours after - 3 - he had the escape. The petitioner has been afforded reasonable opportunity to defend himself by the Inquiry Officer. Mr. Tarlok Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any discrepancy, shortcomings or infraction of mandatory provisions of the rules under which the inquiry has been instituted and concluded against the petitioner. The petitioner has though argued before the appellate authority and the Reviewing Authority that the Inquiry Officer was biased against him, but this plea could not be substantiated. The petitioner has been initially imposed the penalty of forfeiture of one year’s service permanently, but the appellate authority has taken a lenient view and has reduced the penalty of forfeiture of one year service permanently to forfeiture of one year service for the purpose of increment only. The petitioner belongs to disciplined force. 6. The custody of the accused/prisoner was taken on 20.12.2004 at 4.45 p.m. The petitioner was directed to take custody of prisoner, Rajesh Kumar from Model Central Jail, Nahan at 9.45 a.m. on 20.12.2004. He had taken the custody of the prisoner from jail after the lapse of 7 hours. In case he had taken the custody of the prisoner in the morning, there was no occasion for him and the other Constable to keep the accused in the barrack. The petitioner has served the accused with food in the barrack. It was a serious dereliction and negligence of duty on part of the petitioner to make the prisoner asleep in the barrack after he was brought from the jail. The charge levelled against the petitioner would not dilute only on the ground that Rajesh Kumar was re-arrested. His escape from the custody of the petitioner was serious in nature. The petitioner and his colleague were supposed to take the accused to Sonepat directly after taking his custody from Model Central Jail, Nahan. - 4 - Even assuming that no bus service was available in the evening, in that eventuality, necessary precautions were required to be taken by keeping a constant vigil on the accused when he was brought to the barrack. The Inquiry Officer has taken into consideration the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the parties. The inquiry report is detailed and reasoned. The penalty imposed upon the petitioner is proportionate to the alleged mistake. This Court will not interfere with the same. 7. Mr. Tarlok Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that his client was to be promoted after the period of penalty was over. However, Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that the penalty had come into force with effect from 1.3.2005 and as per the guidelines issued vide office memorandum dated 4.7.2000, the currency of the same was upto 1.3.2008. In these circumstances, the case of the petitioner could not be considered for promotion to the post of A.S.I. However, his case was required to be considered for promotion immediately after the expiry of the period of punishment. 8. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is partly allowed to the extent that the respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner for promotion, if not already considered, within a period of two months after the production of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. September 21, 2010. (sck).