Uttarakhand High Court
Head Constable C.P. Mohan Singh Rawat vs Director General Of Police And Others on 25 July, 2018
Author: Alok Singh
Bench: Alok Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No. 198 (SS) of 2017
Head Constable 17
CP Mohan Singh Rawat. .......Petitioner.
Versus
State of Uttarakhand
and others. .........Respondents.
Hon'ble Alok Singh, J.
1. Heard Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. M.S. Bisht, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand and Mr. D.K. Bankoti, Advocate for respondent no. 4.
2. Learned counsel for the parties are ready to argue this matter finally, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties matter is heard finally and decided by this judgment.
3. Facts of case in a nutshell are that initially, petitioner was appointed as Constable on 20.04.2002. In 2010, he was promoted as Head Constable. On 14.05.2013, he was given the charge of Malkhana Moharir, Police Station Bazpur. On 02.07.2013, he was transferred to police station Jaspur and in his place, respondent no. 4 was appointed as Malkhana Moharir in police station Bajpur. From the date of his transfer till 09.10.2013, petitioner has transferred the charge of 259 case property pertaining to year 2011-13. Thereafter, respondent no. 4 was transferred and in his place another Constable 133 CP Mohan Singh took charge of Malkhana Moharir, Bajpur on 28.11.2013. Thereafter, between 09.02.2014 to 12.02.2014, petitioner had transferred the charge of 698 case property pertaining to year 1985-2010. This fact came into the knowledge of respondent no. 3. He ordered for an inquiry. A detailed inquiry was held and 2 respondent no. 3, completing all formalities, awarded censure entry vide order dated 17.02.2015. Petitioner challenged the order dated 17.02.2015 passed by respondent no. 3 before respondent no. 2. Respondent no. 2 after giving opportunity of hearing passed a detailed order dated 22.07.2015 dismissed the appeal of petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court.
4. Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner submits that petitioner was novice, therefore, in order to understand procedure how to hand over charge of properties of Malkhana, petitioner took this much of time. He further submits that reply submitted by the petitioner was not considered by respondents no. 2 and 3; respondent no. 4 was responsible for not taking charge of the case property and proper opportunity of hearing was not granted to him while passing the impugned orders.
5. I do not find any force in the submissions of Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt, Advocate. Petitioner was appointed as Constable on 20.04.2002. Just two months before petitioner's transfer to Jaspur, he was given charge of Malkhana Moharir and in that eventuality, he must have taken charge from the previous Malkhana Moharir, therefore, in such circumstances, petitioner cannot be said to be a novice. It is the duty of the petitioner to hand over the charge immediately after his transfer. Even after transfer of respondent no. 4, petitioner failed to transfer the entire case property. Only in February 2014 i.e. after a lapse of seven months, he was able to transfer entire property, that too, to a third incumbent.
36. In the above circumstances, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned orders. Accordingly, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(Alok Singh, J.) 25.07.2018 SKS