Dismissed

Krishan Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC22 May 2012CWP/580/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, ASI Krishan Singh challenged departmental orders imposing punishment for alleged misconduct. The single-judge High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the inquiry findings were based on sufficient evidence and the statutory consultation with the District Magistrate was duly complied with.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as finding no merit in the petitioner's contentions regarding the inquiry findings and procedural compliance.

Krishan Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

C.W.P.No.580 of 2011

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

C.W.P.No.580 of 2011 Date of Decision:- 22.05.2012

ASI Krishan Singh

....Petitioner(s)

vs.

State of Haryana and others

¶9

....Respondent(s)

¶10

¶11

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

¶12

¶13

Present:Mr.S.S.Dinarpur, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶14

Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana.

¶15

¶16

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral)

¶17

Petitioner has approached this Court praying for quashing of the order dated 18.9.2008 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No.4Deputy Commissioner of Police, Headquarters, Gurgaon, vide which he has been awarded a punishment of stoppage of five future increments with permanent effect. Challenge is also to order dated 11.8.2009 (Annexure P- 4) passed by the Commissioner of Police, Gurgaon on an appeal preferred by the petitioner which has been dismissed as also the order dated 17.4.2010 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Director General of Police, Haryana-respondent No.2 dismissing the revision petition preferred by the petitioner.

¶18

Counsel for the petitioner contends that during the enquiry

¶19

C.W.P.No.580 of 2011

¶20

-2-

¶21

proceedings, complainant-Mamchand s/o Ram Swarup has not supported the case of the prosecution as he had clearly stated before the Inquiry Officer when he appeared as PW-8 that he and the petitioner (ASI Krishan Singh) never happened to be face to face with each other. It has further been stated by him that he has never been scared by the petitioner on the ground of implication in a false case and did not threaten him. He, on this basis, contends that the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer is based on no evidence and, therefore, the same cannot be made the basis for passing the impugned order against the petitioner. Another argument which has been raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that the mandate under Rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (for short 'the Rules'), which requires immediate information to the District Magistrate with regard to criminal offences committed by the Police Officer in connection with the official relations with the public, has not been complied with. He, accordingly, prays that the impugned order cannot sustain.

¶22

On the other hand, counsel for the respondents has submitted that Mamchand, who had appeared as PW-8, has admitted that he had made a statement before Sh.Kailash Chand, Assistant Commissioner of Police (Udyog), Gurgaon and it bears his signatures. He has not disputed the contents of the statement as recorded by the Assistant Commissioner of Police (Udyog), Gurgaon on 27.8.2007. Counsel contends that this fulfils the mandate as far as the factum of a complaint being made by the complainant and demand by the petitioner is concerned. The findings, thus, recorded by the Inquiry Officer are in accordance with law.

¶23

Counsel for the respondents has also produced copy of the

¶24

C.W.P.No.580 of 2011

¶25

-3-

¶26

communication dated 12.8.2008 addressed to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, (HQ), Gurgaon from the District Magistrate, Gurgaon wherein permission to proceed against the petitioner, after going through the records, has been granted. He, on this basis, contends that the mandate under Rule 16.38 of the Rules stands fully complied with. Prayer is made for dismissal of the writ petition as being devoid of any merit.

¶27

I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case.

¶28

A perusal of the Enquiry report, which has been appended by the petitioner as (Annexure P-2) with this writ petition, would show that Mamchand, PW-8 had deposed and admitted the fact that the statement dated 27.8.2007 was given by him before Sh.Kailash Chand, Assistant Commissioner of Police (Udyog), Gurgaon. He has also admitted that the statement bears his signatures. He has nowhere disputed the contents of the complaint and statement. What he has stated during the enquiry proceedings is that he had not come face to face with ASI Krishan Singh (petitioner) and he had never scared him of implicating him in a false case nor did ASI Krishan Singh threaten him. This statement made by Mamchand-complainant establishes beyond doubt the fact that he had actually approached and filed a complaint and made a statement on 27.8.2007 before Sh.Kailash Chand, Assistant Commissioner of Police (Udyog), Gurgaon. The contents therein have also not been disputed by him.

¶29

Be that as it may, the purpose and requirement of the enquiry proceedings with regard to the findings which have been recorded by the

¶30

C.W.P.No.580 of 2011

¶31

-4-

¶32

Inquiry Officer in his report (Annexure P-2) are satisfied. The strict rules of evidence, onus to prove and the requirement of law with regard to the criminal proceedings and the departmental proceedings are quite different. In the criminal proceedings, the allegations have to be proved beyond doubt whereas in the departmental proceedings, it is the preponderance of the evidence which determines the discharge of the onus which has duly been complied with by the prosecution in this case i.e. the departmental officials. The findings, thus, recorded by the Inquiry Officer are fully justified. Although the Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction is not required to interfere in the findings which have been recorded during the enquiry proceedings as a limited jurisdiction is being exercised as far as the judicial review is concerned and generally interference is made where findings have been recorded on the basis of no evidence which is not the case which is at hand and, therefore, the findings as recorded are in consonance with law which do not call for any interference by this Court.

¶33

The impugned orders which have been passed on the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer are, thus, in accordance with law and does not call for any further consideration by this Court or interference thereon.

¶34

As regards the second contention of the counsel for the petitioner i.e. with regard to non-compliance with the mandate of Rule 16.38 of the Rules as applicable to State of Haryana is concerned, suffice it to say that the photocopy of the order which has been produced in Court dated 11.8.2008, goes beyond doubt to show that the communication was sent to the District Magistrate, Gurgaon who had gone through the contents of the letter and relevant papers sent along with the letter under reference

¶35

C.W.P.No.580 of 2011

¶36

-5-

¶37

and had concurred with the opinion to deal with the erring officials through departmental proceedings. Reference to pages 1 to 24 sent along with the letter has been made. This shows proper application of mind by the District Magistrate, Gurgaon. In any case, the allegations against the petitioner are with regard to the demand of an amount of 50,000/- but it has been stated that 25,000/- was paid to the petitioner. On equity also, no interference by this Court is called for. The mandate of law as well as the requirement of the statutory rules having been fulfilled, the Court does not intend to and should not in such circumstances interfere with the discretion exercised by the Punishing Authority and the Authorities under the Statute while exercising its appellate and revisional powers.

¶38

Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands

¶39

dismissed.

¶40

May 22, 2012 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE

Krishan Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishan Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajiv Kumar and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Ashok Kumar Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Sharmila & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Ram Rattan and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Ganga Devi Vs State of Haryana and Others

Kavita Pannu Vs State of Haryana & Ors.