Amar Singh, Constable vs The State of Haryana and Others

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—The petitioner, a Constable in the Haryana Police, was absent from duty from 25.11.1994 to 12.1.1995. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. The charge was found to have been proved. A penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect was imposed. The petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police. His revision to the Director General also met with the same fate. By another order passed on 3.9.1995, the petitioner''s name was also removed from the Promotion List C-1. Aggrieved by the imposition of penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and the order regarding removal of his name from the Promotion List, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

Mr. Agnihotri, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not well. He had submitted a leave application before leaving the station of his posting. Thus, the charge of wilful absence from duty cannot be said to have been proved. Secondly, the learned counsel submits that the removal of the petitioner''s name from the Promotion List was illegal inasmuch as the concurrence from the Deputy Inspector General of Police was not obtained before passing the order. An attempt to challenge the validity of Rule 13.2. has also been made.

The disciplinary authority had instituted a regular departmental enquiry against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer, vide his report dated-13.6.1995, a copy of which has been produced an Annexure P-2 with the writ petition, had come to a positive conclusion that the charge of wilful absence from duty was clearly proved. Thereafter, the petitioner, was given an opportunity to show cause. A penalty of stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect was proposed. After considering the petitioner''s reply, the disciplinary authority had taken a lenient view and let him off with a penalty of stoppage of only two increments. This order has been confirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities. The procedure as prescribed under the rules has been duly followed. The petitioner had been afforded due and reasonable opportunity. It has not been shown or even suggested that the prescribed procedure Was not followed. In this situation, the orders by which the penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioner or his appeal or revision were rejected, call for no interference.

With regard to the removal of the petitioner''s name from the Promotion List C-1, it deserves, to be mentioned that Rule 13.8-A, inter alia, provides that "The infliction of any major punishment shall be a bar to admission to or retention in lists A, B or C.............provided that (a) for special reasons to be recorded by the Superintendent in each case, and subject to confirmation may be waived ............ ". A perusal, of this provision clearly shows that the imposition of any major punishment results in automatic removal of a person''s name from the Promotion List. Thus, by the operation of the rule, the infliction of penalty on the petitioner resulted in the removal of his name from the Promotion List.

Mr. Agnihotri submits that the prior concurrence of the Deputy Inspector General was required. The contention is wholly misconceived. The confirmation from the Deputy Inspector General is needed only when the Superintendent of '' Police "for special reasons" records that the disqualification may be waived. There was no such proposal from the Superintendent of Police. Consequently, the occasion for concurence from the Deputy Inspector General did not arise.

Mr. Agnihotri refers to the communication dated 6.12.19% from the Deputy Inspector General to the Superintendent of Police in different District of Ambala, Kaithal, Panchkula etc. This communication does; not relate to the petitioner''s case. It has no relevance to the facts of the present case. The contention sought to be raised by the learned counsel is totally misconceived.

Equally lacking in merit is the suggestion that the provision of Rule 13.8-A(1) are arbitrary. The rule making authority has provided that the infliction of a major penalty shall automatically result in the removal of the name from the Promotion List. In other words, a uniform yardstick has been provided to the effect that a per-son who has been provided a major penalty, shall not be entitled to be considered for promotion for the specified period. According to the rule, the matter has to be reconsidered after "six months" continuous good conduct." This is a perfectly reasonable provision. The contention that it is arbitrary is wholly unfounded.

No other point has been raised.

The petition is wholly lacking in merit and the same is, consequently, dismissed in limine.