Punjab-Haryana High Court
Krishan Lal vs State Of Haryana And Others on 23 November, 2012
Author: Rakesh Kumar Jain
Bench: A.K.Sikri, Rakesh Kumar Jain
LPA No.1931 of 2012 (O&M) [1]
*****
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
LPA No.1931 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision:23.11.2012
Krishan Lal ...Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K.Sikri, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain
Present: Mr. Paramjit Singh Jammu, Advocate,
for the appellant.
*****
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.
CM No.5053-LPA-2012 For the reasons mentioned in the application, supported by an affidavit, the same is hereby allowed and the delay of 36 days in re-filing of the appeal is hereby condoned.
LPA No.1931 of 2012
In brief, the facts culled out from the petition are that on 16.07.2010, the appellant was posted as Sub Inspector at Police Station City Dabwali, District Sirsa. On the said day, SHO of Police Station City Dabwali was on leave and the appellant was working as an officiating SHO. On that day, two young boys, riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.PB-03U- 2206, snatched the purse of Smt. Manju Rani, a Teacher in Model School, Mandi Dabwali, while she was coming out of the school. One of the two boys LPA No.1931 of 2012 (O&M) [2] ***** was apprehended by the public but the other one managed to escape. The apprehended person was produced in Police Post Gol Bazar, Mandi Dabwali where Smt. Manju Rani submitted a report about the incident. The Incharge of Police Post Gol Bazar, Mandi Dabwali informed the Police Station City Dabwali about the aforesaid incident. The matter was brought to the notice of the appellant who was working as officiating SHO on that day and on his direction FIR No.150 dated 17.07.2010, under Sections 356 and 34 IPC was registered against two unknown persons without inserting Section 379 IPC in the FIR. Thus, allegation against the appellant was that being SHO, he has failed to ensure appropriate action on the complaint of the complainant and did not try to arrest the other accused involved in the crime.
A preliminary inquiry was carried out against him and others in which the allegation was substantially found which led to the regular departmental inquiry for grievous act of misconduct. It was entrusted to DSP Dabwali who submitted his report holding the appellant guilty. On the basis of inquiry report, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant and after due procedure, punishment of stoppage of two future annual increments was imposed upon him. The departmental appeal preferred by the appellant against the said order was dismissed by the Inspector General, Hisar Range on 24.02.2012.
In the writ petition, the aforesaid two orders dated 08.03.2011 by which punishment of stoppage of two annual increment was imposed upon the appellant and the order dated 24.02.2012 dismissing his appeal were challenged. The learned Single Judge, vide its impugned order dated LPA No.1931 of 2012 (O&M) [3] ***** 08.08.2012 dismissed the writ petition with the following order:
"The plea of the counsel for the petitioner that it is a case of no evidence cannot be accepted. PW-5 Munish Kumar, brother of the victim Manju Rani in his statement has clearly stated that ASI Satnarain Talked to SHO/DSP abut this matter which clearly indicates that the petitioner was aware of the factum of incident having been taken place. The stand taken by the petitioner in his defence before the Enquiry Officer as also before the Punishing Authority when he filed a written reply to the show cause notice was that he had proceeded for patrolling and detection of crime at 9.15 a.m. from police station City Dabwali and returned back only at 10.30 p.m. whereas the incident took place at 1.00 p.m. Since he was out of police station, he was not aware about the incident which is patently wrong. That apart, the assertion of the petitioner that he was not aware of the incident of purse snatching when he was on patrolling and detection of crime in the area of police station City Dabwali itself cannot be believed as there is wireless set installed at the vehicle in which he was patrolling. He has also been provided an official mobile phone. Being SHO, he is required to remain in touch with the Police Station and other police posts including the Beat Incharges. It is, therefore, not acceptable that he was unaware of the incident having been taken place. Strangely enough, the petitioner had gone for patrolling and detection of crime in Police Station City Dabwali where the incident has taken place but it was not in the knowledge of the petitioner. It is, therefore, apparent that the petitioner was totally negligent in performance of his duties and was unable to perform his responsibilities of SHO on the said date. The contention of the petitioner that it is a case of no evidence in the light of the statement of the official LPA No.1931 of 2012 (O&M) [4] ***** witnesses and Munish Kumar PW5 cannot be accepted."
Counsel for the appellant has reiterated the submissions made before the learned Single Judge with which we are not, at all, impressed as it cannot be believed that being SHO of the area concerned, he was unaware about the incident which had taken place in day light in which purse of a school Teacher was snatched by two motorcycle borne accused especially when a wireless set is installed in the vehicle of the SHO, who was also provided an official mobile phone and was also patrolling in the same area.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit in the present appeal and hence, the same is hereby dismissed.
(A.K.Sikri) (Rakesh Kumar Jain)
Chief Justice Judge
23.11.2012
vinod*