HARI SINGH Vs. STATE OF H. P.
LAWS(HPH)-2021-2-22
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on February 23,2021

HARI SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF H. P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Vivek Singh Thakur,J. - (1.) Petitioner has approached this Court against Show Cause Notice dated 21.3.2017, Annexure A-1, issued by Superintendent of Police, Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why penalty of censure be not awarded to him for carelessness, negligence, insubordination and poor investigation skill on his part in case FIR No.81/16 dated 22.2.2016, registered under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code in Police Station Aut, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh; assailing recording of adverse remarks in his Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for the period from 1.4.2016 to 31.3.2017 about his integrity, for alleged poor quality of investigation in case FIR No.81/16 referred supra; Memo dated 11.10.2017 (Annexure A-3); and also against rejection of his representation and appeal vide order dated 2.1.2018 (Annexure A-5) and 25.8.2018 (Annexure A-7) respectively, affirming the recording of adverse entries. Petitioner is also aggrieved by action of respondents-Department for not promoting him alongwith his batchmates, despite passing the Upper Course successfully, the requisite qualification for promotion as Sub Inspector.
(2.) Main prayer of the petitioner is to set aside and quash the Show Cause Notice dated 21.3.2017, Annexure A-1; Memo dated 11.10.2017, Annexure A-3; rejection order dated 2.1.2018, Annexure A-5; order in appeal dated 25.8.2018, Annexure A-7; and to direct the respondents to promote him from the due date, with all consequential benefits, including financial benefits.
(3.) Case of respondents-Department is that case FIR No.81/16, dated 22.7.2016, under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code was registered in Police Station Aut against one Hardeep Singh and petitioner had conducted investigation in the said case. As accused Hardeep Singh had fled from the spot after the accident, Investigating Officer (petitioner) had added Sections 134 and 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act in the case. During investigation, petitioner had recorded statements of Balbir Singh (conductor of the Bus involved in the accident), Ved Ram (owner of Dhaba) and other witnesses, under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In statements of Balbir Singh, Sanjay Kumar and Pawan Kumar, timing of the accident was mentioned as 11 p.m., whereas as per statement of complainant the accident had taken place at 9.45 p.m. Further that, in Mechanical Examination Report no mechanical fault was found in the bus which had dashed with two parked vehicles, however, the Investigating Officer had failed to trace accused Hardeep Singh and had submitted untraced report on 6.11.2016, which was sent to the Office of Supervisory Officer, i.e. Deputy Superintendent of Police (Head Quarters), Mandi {Dy.SP(HQ)} alongwith other records of the case, on perusal whereof, the Dy.SP(HQ) was not satisfied and had issued advisory/ guidelines to the petitioner vide letter dated 7.12.2016, with direction to comply with the guidelines, but despite that the petitioner again had prepared and submitted untraced report on 17.1.2017 and Dy.SP(HQ) had again found that efforts made by the petitioner, to arrest the accused, were not satisfactory and directions/guidelines issued earlier were not complied with by the petitioner and, therefore, Memo dated 19.1.2017 was issued to the petitioner directing him to strictly comply with the directions, issued earlier, in the case. But, petitioner again prepared and submitted cancellation report dated 27.3.2017, mentioning therein further that accident had taken place due to sudden short-circuit in the wiring of the bus in question.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.