Hon’ble Manoj Misra, J.—I have heard Sri Shashi Nandan, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Vinod Tripathi for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents and have perused the record. As the pleadings are complete, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is being disposed of finally.

2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for quashing of the order dated 10.5.2011 passed by the Commandant (respondent No. 2), 41st Battalion PAC, Ghaziabad, as also the appellate order dated 2.7.2011 passed by the Deputy Inspector General (respondent No. 4), PAC Meerut Division, Meerut thereby affirming the order dated 10.5.2011, whereby the petitioner has been inflicted with major penalty of reduction to the lowest scale of pay for a period of three years.

3. The relevant facts of the case are that while the petitioner was posted as Head Constable in the 41st Battalion PAC, district Ghaziabad, he and his son were implicated in case crime 304 of 2008 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 504 I.P.C at P.S. Sector 49, district Gautam Budh Nagar. In reference to the said case, on 22.8.2008, the petitioner was taken into judicial custody and was released on bail on 5.11.2008 under the bail order granted by this Court on 17.10.2008. In the meantime, by order dated 1.9.2008, the petitioner was suspended consequent to remaining in jail for a period exceeding 48 hours. On being released on bail, the petitioner reported on duty on 7.11.2008. In the meantime, in the aforesaid criminal case, a charge-sheet was submitted. From the record of the writ petition, it appears that the petitioner challenged the charge-sheet as well as the consequential criminal proceedings by means of Criminal Misc. Application No. 35611 of 2010 wherein an interim order was passed thereby staying further proceedings of the criminal case. As the criminal case proceeding was stayed, the Deputy Commanding Officer, 41st Battalion PAC, Ghaziabad, on 8.11.2010, issued a departmental charge-sheet to the petitioner, which is being reproduced below :

“eq[; vkj{kh 51028 vksenRr R;kxh]

ch ny 41 oha okfguh ih,lh]

xkft;kcknA

,rn}kjk vkidks fuEufyf[kr vkjksiksa ls vkjksfir fd;k tkrk gS%&

^^o"kZ 2008 esa tc vki 41oha okfguh ih,lh] xkft;kckn ds ch ny esa eq[; vkj{kh ds in ij fu;qDr Fksa] rc vkids fo:) Fkkuk lSDVj&49 tuin xkSrecq)uxj esa eq0v0la0 304@2008 /kkjk 420@467@468@471@504 Hkk0n0fo0 ds vUrxZr] vfHk;ksx iathÑr gksuk rFkk mDr vfHk;ksx ds vUrxZr fxjrkj gksdj ftyk dkjkxkj xkft;kckn esa fu:) gksuk rFkk mDr izdj.k esa fuyfEcr fd;k tkukA^^

lk{kh ftu ij vkjksiksa ds leFkZu esa fopkj fd, tkus dk izLrko gS%&

,rn~}kjk vkils izR;sd vkjksi ds mRrj esa vius tokc dk fyf[kr fooj.k 15 fnol esa vFkok mlls iwoZ izLrqr djus dh vis{kk dh tkrh gSA vkidks lpsr fd;k tkrk gS fd ;fn v/kksgLrk{kjh }kjk vuqer le; ds Hkhrj vkils ,slk dksbZ fyf[kr fooj.k izkIr ugh gksrk gS rks ;g mi/kkj.kk dh tkosxh fd vkidks dqN ugh izLrqr djuk gS vkSj ekeys esa ,rn}kjk vkns’k ikfjr dj fn;s tkosxsA

lkFk gh lkFk vkils v/kksgLrk{kjh dks fyf[kr :i ls ;g lqfuf’pr djus dh vis{kk dh tkrh gS fd D;k vki O;fDrxr lquokbZ ds fy;s bPNqd gS vkSj ;fn vki fdlh lk{kh dh izfrijh{kk djuk pkgrs gS rks vius fyf[kr mRrj ds lkFk mldk uke o irk vkSj lk{; ¼ftls izR;sd ,sls lk{kh ls nsus dh izR;k’kk dh tk;sxh½ dk laf{kIr fooj.k izLrqr djsA lkFk gh vkidks lpsr fd;k tkrk gS fd foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh ds nkSjku izfrfuf/k izLrqr djus dk dksbZ izkfo/kku ugh gSA

g0 viBuh;

ihBklhu vf/kdkjh]

41oha okfguh ih,lh]

xkft;kcknA

izekf.kr fd;k tkrk gS fd vkjksih eq[; vkj{kh 51028 vksenRr R;kxh ch ny 41oha okfguh] ih,lh] xkft;kckn dks vkjksi i= i

g0 viBuh;

vkjksi-i= ,oa tkWp ihBklhu vf/kdkjh]

vk[;k dh ,d izfr izkIr dh 41oha okfguh ih,lh]

xkft;kcknA”

4. The petitioner submitted a reply to the charge-sheet thereby admitting that a criminal case was lodged against him as well as his son and that though he was taken in judicial custody but has since been released on bail. The petitioner, however, contested t