Himachal Pradesh High Court
WRIT PETITION 11308 of 2008 on 31 December 2010
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP(T)No.11308 of 2008.
Joginder Singh
Date of decision: 31.12.2010
…. Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P & ors.
Coram:
.... Respondents
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the petitioner: Mr.D.P.Gupta, Advocate.
For the respondents: Sh.Ramesh Thakur, Dy.Advocate General.
Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral)
By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.10.2004 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Police Training College, Daroh, District Kangra over-ruling the orders passed by the Superintendent of Police, Police Training College, Daroh on 23.3.2004.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that an enquiry against the petitioner herein was initiated by the Superintendent of Police, Police Training College, Daroh, District Kangra vide memo dated 18.5.2002. The charges levelled against the petitioner were that he had spent an extra day while delivering Dak to Shimla and that he had remained willfully absent from duties w.e.f 15.5.2002 to 22.10.2002. After completion of the inquiry, inquiry report was supplied to the petitioner and he has represented to the Superintendent of Police who passed two separate orders on 23.3.2004. By the first order, the petitioner was found guilty of the charges and he was warned for the aforesaid lapses and asked to be careful in future and by the subsequent order, the inquiry was closed.
Thereafter, the impugned order was passed on 12.10.2004, six and a half months later. According to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, the Superintendent of Police had no authority to issue warning since the petitioner was only temporarily attached with the Police Training College, Daroh for duty from 1[st] Battalion, Junga and according to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, it was only the C.O of the 1[st] Battalion, Junga who could pass any order in the departmental inquiry. If this contention of the respondents is correct then the very initiation of the inquiry proceedings by the Superintendent of police against the petitioner would also be illegal. Interestingly, the impugned order has also not been passed by the C.O of the 1[st] Battalion, Junga but by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Police Training College, Daroh. If the petitioner was only attached with the C.O, 1[st] Battalion, Junga then the Deputy Inspector General of Police would also have no jurisdiction to pass the orders. It is obvious that the Deputy Inspector General of Police did not agree with the quantum of punishment meted out to the petitioner by the Superintendent of Police and, therefore, this order has been passed. In my view, such an order could not have been passed and the same is accordingly set aside with all consequences. The respondents are directed to take follow up action latest by 31.5.2011.
The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.
December 31, 2010 (m)
( Deepak Gupta ) Judge