IMPORTANT POINT
The duty assigned to the officer in-charge of the concerned police station, as per Rule 81 of the Police Manual, requires more than just forwarding communications to the investigating officer. The court emphasized the least interference principle in exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

I.A. No. 2373 of 2023:

1. This interlocutory application has been filed for condoning the delay of 41 days, which has occurred in preferring this appeal.

2. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-writ petitioner has submitted that the delay of 41 days in preferring the instant appeal may be condoned.

3. Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, learned SC-IV appearing for the respondents has not objected to such prayer of the learned counsel for the appellant rather he has submitted that the delay be condoned so that the issue be decided on merit.

4. This Court, considering the reason assigned therein and having no opposition on behalf of the respondents, is of the view that the delay of 41 days in preferring the instant appeal is required to be condoned.

5. Accordingly, this interlocutory application is allowed and the delay of 41 days in preferring this appeal, is hereby condoned.

L.P.A. No. 646 of 2022:

6. The instant appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 11.10.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 5559 of 2018, whereby and whereunder, the order of punishment withholding of increment for six months as per the order contained in Memo No. 2157/Go has been refused to be interfered with by dismissing the writ petition.

7. The brief facts of the case which requires to be enumerated herein, read as under:

The writ petitioner was appointed on the post of Sub-Inspector, PTC, Hazaribagh in the year 1994 and while the writ petitioner was posted as Officer-in-charge, Mohanpur Police Station, anticipatory bail application being A.B.A. No. 621 of 2016 was filed before the High Court in which case diary was called for but the case diary could not have been sent within time, as such, SDPO, Deoghar had been directed to be present before the Court and he also filed detailed show cause wherein specific statement had been given that the Superintendent of Police, Deoghar has initiated a departmental proceeding against Shri Upendra Singh, I.O. on 07.12.2016 for dereliction in duty for non-compliance of the order dated 22.02.2017 passed by the Court, the Superintendent of Police, Deoghar was directed to conclude the departmental proceeding against Sri Upendra Singh, I.O. of the case and submit a report within 12 weeks.

The writ petitioner, after some time, received a charge sheet contained in Memo NO. 444 dated 12.02.2017 on the alleged charge that the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Sadar, Deoghar by his letter contained in Memo No. 3345/Sadar dated 09.12.2016 has informed that while he was posted as the officer-in-charge of the Mohanpur Police Station and did not take any interest in the matter due to which the case diary could not have been sent to the High Court within time which shows the carelessness, dereliction of duty and violating the orders of a police officer.

The writ petitioner was directed to file his show cause within seven days and departmental proceeding no.32/17 was initiated against him.

It is the case of the writ petitioner that no specific allegation has been alleged against the writ petitioner rather no letters mentioned therein were issued in the name of the writ petitioner being the Officer-in-charge, Mohanpur Police Station or were handed over to him rather the responsibility has been fixed on the writ petitioner merely because he was the officer-in-charge of the Mohanpur Police Station.

The writ petitioner submitted his reply and the departmental proceeding proceeded and the enquiry report dated 29.04.2017 was submitted holding the writ petitioner guilty of the charges and communicated the same to the writ petitioner by letter contained in Memo No. 1248 dated 02.05.2017 and was directed to file his show cause.

The writ petitioner filed his reply on 08.05.2017 denying all the charges levelled against him. But, the writ petitioner received an order contained in Memo No. 2157/Go dated 10.05.2017 passed by the Superinte