ORDER :

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed challenging the order dated 12.10.2022 passed by the State i.e. the Secretary, Home Department in Appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 03.11.2020 passed by the Director General of Police and Chief Police Officer. By the aforesaid order, the Director General of Police had imposed penalty of stoppage of one increment for a period of two years.

2. At the outset, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the punishment of stoppage of one increment for the period of two years would be causing impediment in his future prospect and has therefore, challenged the order including inquiry report by which misconduct alleged against the petitioner was held to be proved. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the misconduct alleged against the petitioner was to the extent of helping one accused Shivarjsinh Madansinh Shekhavat by not keeping him inside the Lockup while in police custody and had permitted the various facilities including allowing him to meet relatives and friends and providing for private vehicle while taking the accused for production before the concerned Court.

2.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner has tried to explain that the factual error is committed inasmuch as the date during which the accused was given facilities at the police station, he was in fact in the jail and not in the police custody and therefore, the very basis of allegation against the petitioner is erroneous on facts. Learned advocate has contended that alongwith the petitioner, other police personnel was also involved in the very act however, qua him the punishment is only to the extent of penalty of one month salary and therefore, by relying upon the decision of this Court in case of Anopsinh Harisinh Bhagora v/s. State of Gujarat and others in Special Civil Application No.17422 of 2016 has claimed that by inflicting the punishment the parity has to be observed. This contention is raised on the basis of proposed draft amendment placed by the petitioner today, wherein the instance in case of PSI, Janaksihh Juwansinh Jadeja was drawn for the purpose of parity.

3. The Court has heard learned advocate for the parties and perused the document placed on record. It is a case where the petitioner was charge-sheeted with allegation that during his duty at Anjar police station, as Investigating Officer, the petitioner had detained the accused Shivrajsinh Madansinh Shekhavat from 25/07/2018 to 03/08/2018, in connection to the offence registered vide Prohi. C.R. no.5293/18, under section-65(A)(E), 116(B) and 98(2) of the Prohibition Act, registered with Anjar police station. In spite of being aware of the fact that he was an inter state criminal, from 25/07/2018 to 03/08/2018, he did not keep the accused in lock-up even once and he did not keep police bandobast to keep necessary watch on him; he made arrangement for him to sleep in the D-staff room at the upper floor of police station and behind the P.S.O. and he let him meet his relatives and the people close to him, frequently; transported him in private vehicle for investigation, provided him more facilities than the facilities provided to other accused and thus committed negligence towards his duty. Thus, he has violated sub rule-(2)(3) of the Rule-3(1) of the Gujarat Civil Service (Conduct) Rules-1971.

4. In this connection, the petitioner was issued show-cause notice dated 26.04.2019 calling upon him to furnish proper explanation. In this connection, the petitioner had made his explanation however, the same was not being accepted and departmental inquiry was initiated, wherein the inquiry had commenced before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Head Quarter, Gandhidham, who finds that the evidence that made during the course of inquiry was that the petitioner U.H.C. Buckle no.1160, Airport east Kachchh Gandhidham was issued statement of imputation vide No.KhTP/2/Z/23-4-19/19/1382 of th