JUDGMENT : 

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J.

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of orders passed by departmental authorities whereby he was awarded punishment of stoppage one future annual increment with permanent effect.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that underpinning of inquiry was a news published in daily newspaper ‘Punjab Kesari’. In the news, it was published that one officer of Vigilance Department was beaten up by villagers of Mandhokhra. The petitioner was not named in the news article, thus, no inference could be drawn against him. Inquiry Officer did not find him guilty. He was found innocent by Inquiry Officer. Disciplinary Authority being different from Inquiry Officer was bound to call comments of the petitioner prior to rejecting inquiry report. The Disciplinary Authority straightway issued show cause notice proposing punishment. It was in gross violation of principles of natural justice. He was finally awarded punishment of forfeiture of one increment with permanent effect. There was no evidence against the petitioner still was subjected to aforesaid punishment. The petitioner was working in CID Department at the relevant point of time and not Vigilance Department.

3. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that petitioner was enrolled as Constable in Haryana Police on 01.11.1991 and was sent on deputation to CID on 17.02.1994. After serving the department as adhoc Head Constable and ASI (Promoted on fortuitous basis), he was repatriated to District Police, Kurukshetra on 03.12.2005 because of complaint against him regarding grabbing money from a notorious person Darshan Singh (Ex- Sarpanch), resident of Village Mandhokhra. A preliminary inquiry was conducted by CID Inspector Mam Chand. In the regular departmental inquiry, he was exonerated. The Superintendent of Police did not agree with inquiry report and issued show cause notice for stoppage of three annual increments with permanent effect, however, taking a lenient view, awarded punishment of stoppage of one annual increment with permanent effect.

4. Heard the arguments and perused the record.

5. The inquiry is adumbrated in Rule 16.24 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to State of Haryana) (for short ‘PPR’). The said Rule prescribes complete procedure of inquiry and punishment which is reproduced as below:

“16.24. Procedure in departmental enquiries.-(1) The following procedure shall be followed in departmental enquiries –

(i) The police officer accused of misconduct shall be brought before an officer empowered to punish him, or such superior officer as the Superintendent may direct to conduct the enquiry. That officer shall record and read out to the accused officer a statement summarizing the alleged misconduct in such a way as to give full notice of the circumstances in regard to which evidence is to be recorded. A cop of the statement will also be supplied to the accused officer free of charge.

(ii) If the accused police officer at this stage admits the misconduct alleged against him, the officer conducting the enquiry may proceed forthwith to frame a charge, record the accused officer's plea and any statement he may wish to make in extenuation and to record a final order, if it is within his power to do so, or a finding to be forwarded to an officer empowered to decide the case. When the allegations are such as can form the basis of a criminal charge, the Superintendent shall decide at this stage, whether the accused shall be tried departmentally first and judicially thereafter.

(iii) If the accused police officer does not admit the misconduct, the officer conducting the enquiry shall proceed to record such evidence, oral and documentary, in proof of the accusation, as is available and necessary to support the charge. Whenever possible, witnesses shall be examined direct, and in the presence of the accused, who shall be given opportunity to take notes of their sta