- (1.) This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition No.69 of 1994 (HC Niranjan Singh through his L.Rs Vs. State of Haryana and others ) and Civil Writ Petition No. 65 of 1994 ( Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and others) as common questions of law and facts have arisen out of both the petitions. However, the facts have been taken from Civil Writ Petition No.69 of 1994.
(2.) The petitioner challenged the orders dated 8.7.1992 (Annexure P-14), dated 24.2.1993 (Annexure P-16), dated 3.11.1993 (Annexure P-18) and dated 12.7.1993 (Annexure P-19) whereby petitioner HC Niranjan Singh was reverted from the rank of Head Constable to that of Constable and recovery of Rs. 29,284.85 paise was ordered to be made from him.
(3.) The case pleaded in the petition is that the petitioner Niranjan Singh was enlisted as Constable in Haryana Police on 27.7.1993 and promoted as Head Constable in the year 1988 due to his hard work and passing of the Lower School Course. The petitioner had earned 20 good entries for displaying exceptional work and no bad report even warning had ever been communicated to the petitioner during his entire service and all the ACRs of the petitioner were of very good nature. While posted as M.T.O. in the month of December, 1991, the driver of Gypsy bearing No.HR-01-1723 took the gypsy for repair purposes and entry to this effect was made vide DDE No.46 dated 25.12.1991. The said Gypsy was required to be got repaired to make available for patrol duty to the Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar. Since there was no provision for repairing the Gypsy in the Government workshop, the same was got repaired from the open market and defects from the said vehicle were removed at the workshop of Amar Motor Garage, Yamuna Nagar. After removing the defects the vehicle was put to trial and Constable Driver Ramesh Kumar (petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No.65 of 1994) and Mohan Kumar, Mechanic of Amar Motor Garage, Yamuna Nagar completed the trial and vehicle was also tested by the Mechanic Foreman and later on Constable Driver Ramesh Kumar was having try and at that time the vehicle met with an accident with Haryana Roadways bus due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver and the petitioner was also injured in that accident because he was also sitting in the gypsy for supervising the try. The petitioner was treated by Dr. Saini at Chhappar. However, he was placed under suspension on 26.12.1991 by respondent no.4 alongwith co-defaulter Constable Ramesh Kumar. Deep Chand Bhardwaj, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Jagadhari was appointed as Enquiry Officer to hold enquiry against the petitioner. The charge against the petitioner was that the petitioner asked Constable Ramesh Kumar who was posted as Driver of the Gypsy to drop him at PS Chhappar and the said Constable without permission from officers had started to drop him and on the way near village Haripur Jattan the Gypsy had been involved in an accident with Haryana Roadways bus of Yamuna Nagar Depot whereby great loss/damage had been caused to the Gypsy. Further allegation was that HC Niranjan Singh had taken liquor and misused the said vehicle without obtaining permission from the higher officers whereas Constable Ramesh Kumar without taking permission from the competent officer had gone to Chhappar to drop HC Niranjan Singh by driving the Gypsy and on the way committed an accident with the Haryana Roadways bus and had given a proof of indiscipline and carelessness. It is further pleaded that the prosecution examined seven witnesses and none of them clearly stated that the petitioner had taken liquor and it was only hearsay version and even Dr. B.L.Saini, had been produced as DW-2 to depose about the line of treatment given to the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer without taking into consideration and without discussing the prosecution evidence came to the conclusion that the charges had been proved against the petitioner and his co-defaulter. An enquiry committee was also constituted by respondent no.4 to find out the cause of the accident and loss caused to the gypsy. The committee submitted its report that the new material was purchased for the repair of Gypsy and all the items which had become unserviceable be declared as condemned and sold in open auction for Rs. 200/-. The Committee thereafter met and recommended for sanction of the material purchased for the vehicle in its meeting dated 12.2.1992. The sanction of the same was granted by respondent no.2 vide his letter dated 25.5.1992 and in the letter sent to respondent no.1, it was specifically mentioned that the vehicle was involved in an accident while it was on Government duty and the parts had been purchased from the open market. Prior to this respondent no.4 had submitted details to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ambala Range, Ambala vide letter dated 11.4.1992 in which it was specifically mentioned that the Gypsy No.HR-01-1723 had met with an accident while it was on Government duty. However, copy of the letter was not with the petitioner. It was further pleaded that no purchase was made from the local market at Yamuna Nagar but the petitioner along with ASI Lahori Lal, MTO and Mohan Lal, Mechanic had left on 8.1.1992 from Yamuna Nagar for Ambala/Delhi for procuring the spare parts of the Gypsy and 2nd hand material was purchased and fitted in the said Gypsy and the said Gypsy was got repaired. The return was also there on 9.1.1992 at 5.00 P.M. and the material was purchased from Kabari Bazar, Delhi. Affidavit of Madan Lal along with Jugal Kishore to the effect that Madan Lal along with ASI Lohari Lal and HC Niranjan Singh had gone to Kabari Bazar, New Delhi was appended. The petitioner was thereafter issued two show cause notices dated 29.5.1992 and in one show cause notice it was mentioned that why the penalty of dismissal from service be not imposed upon him and in the other an explanation was asked as to why the amount of Rs. 29,284.85 paise be not recovered from him on the basis of the enquiry report. The petitioner had replied to both the show cause notices taking the plea that the vehicle was on Government duty and the petitioner was never associated with the survey committee and no enquiry regarding that had taken place. The alleged smell of liquor was only due to medicines given to him by a private Doctor and he was not under the influence of liquor. The vehicle had met with an accident during the try which is beyond the control of the MTO. The recovery of amount of repair was not justified.;