LPA No.1276 of 2010 (O&M) :1: IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.1276 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: April 04, 2011 Varinder Kumar .... Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. H.S. Sethi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Addl. A.G., Haryana. ***** 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 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 the judgment dated 26.11.2009 rendered by the learned Single Judge, rejecting the claim made by the appellant that the departmental proceeding conducted against him were against the principles of natural justice and unfair. The other issue, which failed to find favour with the learned Single Judge, was that the order of his dismissal dated 30.04.2007 was not passed by the appointing authority, who was competent and the same was passed by an officer subordinate to the appointing authority. 2. On the first plea raised by the appellant, the learned Single LPA No.1276 of 2010 (O&M) :2: Judge has found that when notice of motion was issued, the claim made by the appellant was rejected at that stage itself. 3. Apart from the fact that the notice of motion was confined to the second issue, it is amply clear from the perusal of enquiry report dated 11.05.2006 that the appellant has appeared before the enquiry officer only once and thereafter, on subsequent dates of hearing, he did not appear and was proceeded ex-parte. The enquiry officer has found that when the appellant was posted as Incharge of Police Station, Sector 20, Panchkula, a complaint was lodged on 17.10.2004 by one Napinder Singh against Smt. Ravleen Uppal for cheating the complainant of ` 2 Lac by her on the pretext of sending him to Canada. The complaint was marked to the Incharge of Police Station, Sector 20, Panchkula, namely the appellant on 27.11.2004. Smt. Uppal came to join investigation and the appellant had pressurized her to issue two cheques for ` 1 Lac and ` 75,000/- in cash to Napinder Singh. The appellant is alleged to have illegally harassed her by forcing her to sit in the Police Station throughout the day. The act of the appellant was found to be under the influence of some greed and he is alleged to have shown grave indiscipline and has tarnished the image of the police. On the aforesaid charges, he was found guilty. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to him (P-23) on 04.01.2007, to which he tendered his reply on 28.03.2007. Eventually, the appointing authority passed an order of his dismissal from service and as such, he was not to be entitled to any pension and other consequential benefits (P-25). Even the appeal and revision filed by the appellant under Rules 16 and 29 of the Rules have been dismissed vide order dated 08.09.2007 and LPA No.1276 of 2010 (O&M) :3: 05.01.2009 respectively. Therefore, we are not left with any doubt that the first plea raised by the appellant was rightly rejected by the learned Single Judge. 4. Even on the second plea, the learned Single Judge held that the Superintendent of Police was competent to inflict the punishment of reversion because Rule 12.1 read with 16.1 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (for brevity 'the Rules') confer adequate power on the Superintendent of Police to inflict such a punishment on a Sub Inspector and Assistant Sub Inspector. 5. Brief facts of the case may first be noticed. The appellant was appointed on 25.01.1995 as probationar Assistant Sub Inspector. He was confirmed as Assistant Sub Inspector on 31.03.1998 and then promoted as Sub Inspector on 31.01.2002. He has been working in the Police District, Panchkula and on 21.04.2005 he was transferred to District Kaithal. The appellant failed to join his duties at Kaithal and remained absent from duty for a period of 11 months. A charge sheet was framed and a regular departmental enquiry was instituted against him. The appellant never appeared before the enquiry officer after first few hearings. Thereafter, the enquiry officer conducted ex-parte enquiry. There is ample testimony of the aforesaid fact, if we look at the enquiry report dated 11.05.2006 (P8) in that regard. 6. A perusal of the enquiry report would show that Manbir Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police (HQ), Panchkula, served a charge sheet on the appellant as per rules and afforded him opportunity to think over the charge sheet alongwith the statements of two witnesses. He was given ample opportunity to cross-examine LPA No.1276 of 2010 (O&M) :4: both the witnesses. However, no opportunity of cross-examination was availed by the appellant in respect of both the witnesses namely ASI Mehmood Khan, No.98/Panchkula (PW-1) and HC Mohinder Singh, No.60/Panchkula, Moharrar Police Lines (PW-2). Thereafter, the enquiry was held on 29.12.2005 and the appellant did not join the proceedings. Accordingly, he was proceeded ex-parte and the statements of PW-3 to PW-5 were recorded ex-parte and it was concluded by the enquiry officer that the appellant has remained absent from duty without sanctioned leave for a long period of 11 months and committed an act of indiscipline and irresponsibility. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued which was duly replied by the appellant. After considering the show cause notice, the Superintendent of Police vide order dated 29.12.2006 (P-11) reverted the appellant from the post of Sub Inspector to that of Assistant Sub Inspector. That order has attained finality. In another enquiry, to which reference has already been made in para 3 of this judgment, the appellant was dismissed from service vide order dated 30.04.2007 (P-23). It is the order of dismissal emerging from the that enquiry, which is subject matter of challenge in the proceedings initiated before this Court by filing a writ petition. The question raised by the appellant is, whether the order of his dismissal dated 30.04.2007 (P-23) has been passed by a competent authority? 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length. On the question whether Superintendent of Police is competent to inflict upon the appellant the punishment of dismissal from the post of Assistant Sub Inspector, the proposition of law has been settled by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of LPA No.1276 of 2010 (O&M) :5: State of Punjab v. Hari Singh, JT 2008 (3) SC 415. In that case the Deputy Inspector General of Police has signed the order approving the list of Head Constables who were recommended by the Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion to the rank of Assistant Sub Inspectors of Police. At the end of the order it was clearly stated that the list was approved for promotion and that necessary gazette notification should be issued by the Superintendent of Police. Thus, the promotion was not legally formalized by the order of the Deputy Inspector General of Police and actual promotion was made by the order of the concerned Superintendent of Police. On account of the fact that the order of promotion passed by the Superintendent of Police was not produced by either side, the Courts below had fallen in error in that case . It was in the aforesaid facts and circumstances that in para 7 of the judgment Hon'ble the Supreme Court has observed in Hari Singh's case (supra) that Rule 12.1 in Chapter XII of the Rules lays down that the appointing authority for Sergeants, Sub Inspectors and Assistant Sub Inspectors is Superintendent of Police. 8. The facts in the present case are not different. The order of promotion of the appellant was issued by the Superintendent of Police on 21.02.2002 (R.I) on the post of officiating Sub Inspector of Police w.e.f. 21.02.2002 against existing vacancy. The argument similar to the one which was rejected by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Hari Singh's case (supra) has been raised before us by placing reliance on the order dated 30.01.2002 (P-31) passed by the Inspector General of Police, Ambala range who has merely approved the list of those officers who were eligible for promotion to the post of LPA No.1276 of 2010 (O&M) :6: Sub Inspector. However, the order of promotion on the post of Assistant Sub Inspector was issued on 21.02.2002 by the Superintendent of Police. The competency of the Superintendent of Police to inflict punishment is amply born out from a perusal of Rule 12.1 and 16.1 of the Rules, which are set up below to appreciate the controversy:- “12.1. Authorities empowered to make appointments. Deputy Superintendent of Police are appointed by the Provincial Government according to rules contained in Appendix 12.1. 1 2 3 Class of Government servants Authority to whom the power of appointment is delegated The extent of the delegation Inspectors Deputy Inspectors-General of Police, Superintendent of Police, Railways Assistant Inspector-General, Provincial Additional Police, (designated as Commandant, Provincial Additional Police), and the Assistant Inspector-General of Police (Traffic) Full powers subject to rules governing the conditions of service as defined in Police Rules. Sergeants, Sub- Inspectors and Assistant Sub- Inspectors Superintendent of Police and Deputy Superintendent (Administrative), Government Railway Police and Assistant Superintendent, Government Railway Police. (underline by us) Rule 16.1 for Haryana 16.1. Authorised punishments.(I) No police officer shall be departmentally punished otherwise than as provided in these rules. (2) The departmental punishments mentioned in the second column of the subjoined table may be inflicted on officers of the various ranks shown in the heading Nos. 3 to 6, by the officers named below each heading in each case, LPA No.1276 of 2010 (O&M) :7: or by any officer of higher rank:- 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sr. No. Departmental punishment Inspectors Sergeants, Sub- Inspectors and Assistant Sub- Inspectors Head Constables Constables 1 Dismissal Deputy Inspectors- General. Superintendents of Police, Railway, the Assistant Inspector General, Provincial Additional Police, designated as Commandant, Provincial Additional Police, and the Assistant Inspector-General of Police (Traffic) Superintendent of Police and Deputy Superintendent (Administrative ) Government Railway Police xx xx Reduction in rank* Superintendent of Police Railway; Superintendents of Police; Assistant Inspector-General of Police (Traffic) Superintendent of Police. Also Deputy Superintendent (Administrative ), Government Railway Police, and (as regards Sub-Inspectors and Assistant Sub-Inspectors only), Deputy Superintendent in-Charge of Railway Police Sub-Division and Officer-in- charge of the Police Recruits Training Centres, Amritsar xx xx Stoppage of increment* Ditto Ditto xx xx 9. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid rules would show that Sub Inspectors and Assistant Sub Inspectors are appointed by the Superintendent of Police, as is evident from column Nos.1 & 2 of the table underneath Rule 12.1. Likewise, the departmental punishment LPA No.1276 of 2010 (O&M) :8: of dismissal as well as reduction in rank can be inflicted by the Superintendent on a Sub Inspector as well as on an Assistant Sub Inspector as per columns 4 of the Table underneath Rule 16.1 of the Rules. Therefore, it is evident from the rules that the appointing as well as punishing authority of the appellant is the Superintendent of Police and a mere fact that the promotion list was approved by the higher authorities would not denude the Superintendent of Police of his power to inflict the punishment as per rules. Moreover, after the approval of promotion list, the appointment letters have been issued by the Superintendent of Police and not by any of the higher authorities. 10. It is, thus, evident from the statutory rules, precedents as well as principles that order of dismissal passed by the respondent would not suffer from any lack of power on the part of the Superintendent of Police. The Superintendent of Police is fully competent to inflict the punishment of dismissal as well as of reduction in rank. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the contention raised on behalf of the appellant. 11. As a sequel to the above discussion, this appeal does not warrant admission and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (T.P.S. MANN) JUDGE April 04, 2011 ajp