IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.14 of 2002 Decided on : September 8, 2008 Brestu Ram …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. R.B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2. Per Surjit Singh, Judge( Oral ) Writ petitioner has challenged the legality and correctness of the order of the learned State Administrative Tribunal, passed in Original Application No.2205 of 1999, thereby dismissing the Original Application, containing the prayer for setting aside the order of dismissal passed against him by Superintendent of Police, Shimla and affirmed in appeal by Deputy Inspector General of Police, Southern Shimla and Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla. 2. Writ petitioner was appointed as Constable in Police Department in the year 1976. He continued in service till the passing of order Annexure P-4, dated 16th October, 1996, by the Superintendent of Police, Shimla, whereby he was dismissed Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… from service. During this period of 21 years employment as Constable, writ petitioner remained willfully absent on several occasions, for which he was visited with different kinds of penalties seven times. His service was forfeited once for five years and second time for eight years. Twice his increments were stopped and thrice he was censured. Despite imposition of such penalties, there was no improvement in his conduct and he continued to remain absent from duty. In the year 1996, he again remained absent from duty for a period of 72 days, on five different occasions. 3. Departmental inquiry was ordered for the aforesaid willful absence from duty in the year 1996. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Shimla, was appointed as Inquiry Officer. Inquiry Officer prepared summary of charge and read out and explained the same to the writ petitioner. Copy of the said summary of charge was also supplied to him. He pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, evidence adduced on behalf of the Police Department was recorded. Writ petitioner was afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, but he chose not to avail of that opportunity. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the Police Department, writ petitioner was, prima facie, found guilty of willful absence from duty for a total period of 72 days, on five different occasions, during the year 1996. Thereafter, formal chargesheet was prepared by the Inquiry Officer and it was submitted to the Superintendent of Police, Shimla, for approval, and after it was approved, it was served upon the writ petitioner. Service was effected on 26th July, 1996. Writ …3… petitioner did not answer the chargesheet nor did he appear before the Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer then prepared his report, holding the writ petitioner guilty of the charge, and submitted that report to the Superintendent of Police, Shimla. 4. Superintendent of Police, Shimla, issued a notice to the writ petitioner, calling upon him to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service, because of his willful absence for the aforesaid period and also on account of his having not shown any improvement in his conduct inspite of his having been held guilty and punished seven times, in the past, for willful absence from duty. Writ petitioner submitted reply. After considering the said reply, report of the Inquiry Officer and the evidence adduced during inquiry, the Superintendent of Police passed order Annexure P-4, dismissing the writ petitioner from service. The Superintendent of Police observed in his order that the writ petitioner was incorrigible, as despite his having been punished seven times, in the past, for misconduct of willful absence, he had not shown any improvement in his conduct and, therefore, he was not fit to be retained in police force. Appeals were filed by the writ petitioner to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Southern Range, Shimla, and then to the Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, which were dismissed. Thereafter, the writ petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing Original Application No.2205 of 1999. In that petition he alleged that the Inquiry Officer had not followed the prescribed procedure, inasmuch as no chargesheet had been framed and served upon him and he had not been afforded the …4… opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses during inquiry. Learned Tribunal dismissed the Original Application holding that the record of the case established that chargesheet had been framed and served upon the writ petitioner and opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses had also been afforded, but he did not cross-examine the witnesses. 5. In the present writ petition, it is alleged that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the fact that the procedure prescribed in Rule 16.24 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, Volume II, as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh, had not been followed by the Inquiry Officer. It is also the grievance of the writ petitioner that the punishment of dismissal is too harsh in comparison to the alleged act of misconduct. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record. 7. From the record, we do not find any irregularity having been committed by the Inquiry Officer in the course of holding inquiry. Procedure, as prescribed in Rule 16.24 of the Punjab Police Rules, referred to above, was complied with in letter and spirit. Learned counsel representing the writ petitioner has not been able to point out any flaw in the procedure followed by the Inquiry Officer. Initially, the Inquiry Officer prepared summary of charge and delivered a copy thereof to the writ petitioner. When the writ petitioner pleaded not guilty to the said summary of charge, evidence adduced on behalf of the Police Department was recorded. On the basis of that evidence, chargesheet was framed. It was submitted to the …5… Superintendent of Police, Shimla, the appointing authority of the writ petitioner, for approval. When it was approved by the said Superintendent of Police, it was served upon the writ petitioner at his place of residence, as he again absented from duty. He did not put in appearance before the Inquiry Officer after the service of chargesheet nor did he respond to the chargesheet. Also, he did not lead any evidence. The evidence that was adduced before the Inquiry Officer, consisted of entries in the record, particularly the Rojnamcha, which established the charge against the writ petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. Under these circumstances, we find no merit in the submission that the procedure followed by the Inquiry Officer was contrary to Rule 16.24 of the Punjab Police Rules. 8. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the provision of Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules, extreme punishment of dismissal from service can be awarded only for the gravest acts of misconduct or as a cumulative effect of continuing misconduct, proving the incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police service. According to him, neither of these two requirements of rule 16.2 is fulfilled. Even though, the act of misconduct for which the writ petitioner has been punished may not be gravest act of misconduct, but in the present case the punishment of dismissal has been awarded, on account of cumulative effect of continued misconduct, proving incorrigibility on the part of the writ petitioner and his complete unfitness for police service. The Superintendent of Police in his order, Annexure P-4, has noticed that the writ petitioner had been …6… punished atleast seven times before imposition of the impugned penalty, for the acts of willful absence from duty on a number of occasions, but that did not have any effect on him and he had become incorrigible and was, therefore, completely unfit for police service. In the facts and the circumstances of the case, as noticed hereinabove, we find no reason to disagree with the aforesaid observation and finding of the Superintendent of Police and consequently to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that there is no merit in the writ petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. ( R.B. Misra ), J. September 8, 2008(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J.