The main legal point established in the judgment is that disciplinary proceedings must adhere to the provisions of the relevant disciplinary rules and acts, and the penalty imposed must be commensurate with the alleged offence.

ORDER :

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 26.2.2021 passed by Director-General of Police, Himachal Pradesh, whereby he though upheld the order dated 4.1.2020 passed by IGP Southern Range, Shimla whereby punishment of permanent forfeiture of three years of service passed by Superintendent of Police 31.1.2020 was upheld but taking lenient view modified the punishment of permanent forfeiture of three years to 1 year of service, petitioner has approached this court in the instant proceedings filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein for following relief.

“That in view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, the enquiry report, impugned orders dated 31.1.2020, 4.8.2020, 26.2.2021 whereby the petitioner was found guilty may kindly be quashed and set aside and whereby, the penalty imposed upon the present petitioner may kindly be quashed and set aside.”

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are that in the year 2019, while petitioner was posted as Station House Officer Police Station Parwanoo, a case FIR No. 12, dated 12.1.2019, under S. 307, 323, 506 and 34 IPC was registered on the complaint of one Shri Sukhvinder Singh, at Police Station Parwanoo, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. Since an audio clip purportedly revealing conversation between the petitioner, the then Station House Officer, Police Station Parwanoo and an unknown person surfaced, wherein petitioner was allegedly telling one Sandeep Chauhan to settle the matter before expiry of period of police remand of accused Deepak, matter came to be reported to the police by the complainant Sandeep Chauhan, as such, Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Southern Range, Shimla directed Additional Superintendent of Police Shri Praveer Thakur vide order dated 30.3.2019 (Annexure P-1) to conduct an enquiry. Aforesaid officer, after having conducted enquiry submitted report to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Southern Range, Shimla, wherein though Inquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the petitioner, the then Station House Officer Police Station Parwanno had made telephonic call to Sandeep Chauhan but no proof was found with regard to demand of money/bribe, if any, by the petitioner. Annexure P-2.

3. On the basis of aforesaid preliminary enquiry report, Deputy Inspector-General of Police vide order dated 14.5.2019, ordered to conduct regular departmental enquiry against the petitioner/delinquent official. by Superintendent of Police through a GO as per provisions of Rule 16.24 of the Punjab Police Rules, as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh.

4. Superintendent of Police, Shimla after having received aforesaid order from the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Southern Range, Shimla, further delegated enquiry to Deputy Superintendent of Police, Theog. Aforesaid officer, in compliance to order issued by Superintendent of Police, Shimla, served the petitioner with charge sheet on 26.9.2019, Annexure P-4, alleging therein, while the petitioner was posted as Station House Officer Police Station Parwanoo, he persuaded the complainant to settle the matter with the accused. Petitioner filed reply to the aforesaid charge sheet but interestingly, Inquiry Officer after having received reply, again served charge sheet upon the petitioner dated 26.9.2019 (Annexure P-4) containing similar set of allegations, as were contained in the initial charge sheet. After completion of evidence of prosecution, petitioner was afforded opportunity to lead evidence, which was availed by him, but after completion of proceedings, Inquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of charges framed against him and accordingly recommended disciplinary action (page 64). On the basis of aforesaid Inquiry Report, Superintendent of Police, Shimla straightaway, proceeded to pass order (Annexure P-7) imposing penalty of forfeiture of three years service permanently.

5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, petitioner fil