Kulbir Singh Beniwal v. State Of Haryana & ORS

C. W. P. No. 20676 of 2015 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Case No. : C. W. P. No. 20676 of 2015 Date of Decision : September 28, 2015 Kulbir Singh Beniwal ....

Petitioner Vs.

State of Haryana and others ....

Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL.

* * * To be referred to Reporters or not ?

Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? * * * Present :

Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

* * * DEEPAK SIBAL , J.

:

Under challenge through this petition are orders dated 30.09.2005 (Annexure P-11), 14.02.2006 (Annexure P-13) and 08.08.2012 (Annexure P-15), which are the punishment order, order passed in appeal against the punishment order and the order passed in revision respectively. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts, which are borne out from the record of the case and which have emerged from the arguments raised at the bar are that the petitioner, who was working as a Head

C. W. P. No. 20676 of 2015 2 Constable with the respondents, was charged with using abusive language and misbehaviour with his superior because of the fact that his superior, in the discharge of his official duties, had summoned the petitioner's father in Police Station in connection with a complaint having been received. The petitioner had also been charged for having threatened to kill his superior as and when he entered the village of the petitioner in connection with the investigation of the complaint received in the Police Station. The reply of the petitioner to the charge-sheet, having been found to be unsatisfactory, he was subjected to a departmental inquiry, which found the petitioner guilty of all the charges levelled against him. Copy of the inquiry report was served upon the petitioner, to which he responded to.

After going through the entire facts, through order dated 30.09.2005 (Annexure P-11), punishment of stoppage of three future increments with permanent effect was ordered. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and so was the revision petition. A perusal of the inquiry report shows that only because his superior, on receipt of a complaint, had summoned the petitioner's father to the Police Station for investigating a matter, the petitioner had barged into the Police Station and showered upon his superior officer choicest of vulgar abuses. He was further found to have misbehaved with his superior.

C. W. P. No. 20676 of 2015 3 only discharging his official functions. The proven misconduct on the part of the petitioner is unbecoming of by a man in uniform. No flaw in the procedure followed, while proceeding departmentally against the petitioner, has been pointed out. The present petition also suffers from inordinate and unexplained delay. The order passed by the revisionary authority is dated 08.08.2012. The present petition has been filed after over three years and for the delay, no explanation is offered.

In view of the above, on account of delay, as also on merits, this writ petition is ordered to be dismissed. No costs.

( DEEPAK SIBAL ) JUDGE September 28, 2015 monika