Dismissed

Sube Singh v. State of Haryana &Ors

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Jul 2014CWP/7051/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of an order imposing a 25% cut in pension. The court held no case for interference despite the Inquiry Officer's exoneration. After sparingly engaging with the matter previously adjudicated, the court declined to interfere further.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; impugned orders imposing 25% pension cut stood upheld.

Sube Singh Vs State of Haryana &Ors — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

CWP No.7051 of 2014 (O&M)

¶2

KUMAR MANOJ #1# 2015.02.06 12:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

¶4

AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

CWP No.7051 of 2014 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.7.2014

¶6

Ex. Sub Inspector Sube Singh

¶7

.............Petitioner

¶8

¶9

State of Haryana and Ors.

¶10

.............Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH

¶12

Present:- Mr. S.N. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Jaswant Singh,J

¶14

C.M.No.7557 of 2014

¶15

Allowed as prayed for.

¶16

CWP No.7051 of 2014

¶17

Petitioner has filed the present writ petition for quashing of impugned order dated 18.7.2012 (P.9) passed by respondent No.3Inspector General of Police, South Range, Rewari vide which he has imposed a cut of 25% in pension of the petitioner as well as the order dated 7.3.2014 (P.11) vide which his appeal against the said order was rejected by the Director General of Police, Haryana-respondent No.2.

¶18

Learned counsel argues that the impugned orders passed by both the Authorities are patently erroneous in view of the fact that in the departmental inquiry launched against the petitioner, charges were not proved and the petitioner was exonerated by the Inquiry Officer, however, the Inspector General of Police has reviewed the matter

¶19

#2#

¶20

CWP No.7051 of 2014 (O&M)

¶21

without any basis and imposed the cut in pension, which is not sustainable in law and more particularly in view of the fact that the writ petition of the petitioner already stands allowed.

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paper book with his able assistance.

¶23

It is not in dispute that the petitioner retired from service of Haryana Police on 31.8.2010 on attaining the age of superannuation and on that date, disciplinary proceedings were pending against him on account of taking gratification of Rs.80,000/- from one Dalbir Singh son of Jai Kanwar R/o Vikas Nagar, Gali No.2, near Sector 23, Sonepat. It is also matter of record that a criminal case was also registered against the petitioner during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings after his retirement. No doubt, vide order dated 8.6.2011 (P.6), the Superintendent of Police, Rewari filed the inquiry proceedings while agreeing with the findings of Inquiry Officer and ordered the suspension period from 29.8.2010 to 31.8.2010 to be spent on duty.

¶24

Thereafter, the Inspector General of Police-respondent No.3 while exercising powers under Rule 16.28 of the Punjab Police Rules (for short “PPR”) issued a show cause notice to the petitioner for imposition of 25% cut in pension on account of the following observation:

¶25

“The perusal of relevant record revealed that the Inquiry officer had unreasonably let you off despite

¶26

#3#

¶27

CWP No.7051 of 2014 (O&M)

¶28

enough evidence being available on file against you. PW-6, the complainant in his statement had admitted the ESI Sube Singh had taken gratification of Rs.80,000/- for compromising with the other party in case FIR No.67/2006 u/s 326/34 IPC which was registered against him and later on returned the amount of Rs.80,000/- to the complainant in Panchayat.”

¶29

The petitioner filed his reply to the show cause notice and after taking into consideration, the competent Authority passed the impugned order (P.9) and observed as under:

¶30

“In exercise of provisions under PPR 16.28, I issued a fresh Show Cause Notice to the delinquent and also heard him in person on 16.07.2012. He pleaded that he was not guilty whereas PW6 and 7 have clearly brought out the fact in their statements, that Rs.80,000/- was paid to ESI Sube Singh which was eventually returned through the Panchayat.”

¶31

The abovesaid observation is based on official noting in the form of Disagreement Note and not controverted by the petitioner, who was working as an SHO of the Police Station at the relevant time when allegation of bribe of Rs.80,000/- was made against him. It is a very serious issue but in view of the fact that the Inquiry Officer has submitted the report in favour of the petitioner and came to the conclusion that the petitioner is “innocent and not guilty” although this is the domain of the punishing authority and not of the Inquiry Officer.

¶32

Under the service jurisprudence, the role of the Inquiry

¶33

#4#

¶34

CWP No.7051 of 2014 (O&M)

¶35

Officer is to submit the report only with regard to the factum as to whether the charges are proved or not proved or partly proved and he has no business to record a finding of observing the delinquent to be innocent or guilty.

¶36

Be that as it may, the matter is already closed by the competent authorities and in view of the fact that already a lenient view of cut of 25% pension is taken against the petitioner, this Court does

¶37

not wish to go further in the matter.

¶38

No case for interference is made out.

¶39

Dismissed.

¶40

July 18, 2014 manoj

¶41

(Jaswant Singh) Judge

Sube Singh v. State of Haryana &Ors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sube Singh v. State of Haryana &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

Hari Kishan Vs Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. and Ors.

Yogesh Mahajan Vs State Information Commission Haryana & Ors.

Satbir Singh Sangwan and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Rajnish Kumar Mehta Vs Pspcl and Ors.

Sonu Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Vijender Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors.