Sonia vs The State of Haryana and Others

Rajiv Narain Raina, J.—The petitioner is a lady Constable. She has invoked the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against an order of punishment imposing stoppage of five annual increments with permanent effect by order dated 16.04.2012 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Jind. Her salary for the suspension period for 09.07.2011 to 28.07.2011 has been forfeited. The order of punishment has been upheld in appeal before the Inspector General of Police, Hisar Range, Hisar vide order dated 12.07.2012 (P-9) and the revision before the Additional Director General of Police, Administration, Haryana-cum-Revisional Authority has failed confirming the major punishment inflicted. The summary of allegations against the petitioner are that while posted as Constable at the Safe House meant for runaway couples at about 7 PM of 8/9.7.2011 while on duty the Safe House was subjected to surprise checking by Inspector Paramjit Singh, SHO, Jind who found some Constables absent from duty while one Constable Mahabir Singh was discovered under the influence of liquor. The charge against the petitioner was that during the surprise checking an "unknown young boy" had met her while on duty whom she claimed was her relative. She was charged with calling on unknown young boy at the place of duty. This charge has been proven at the enquiry which has led to the order of punishment. The findings of the Enquiry Officer, District Inspector, Jind, in the enquiry report dated 28.02.2012 read as follows:-

Similarly, Lady Constable Sonia no. 1056/Jind has not produced any defence witness and submitted in her written defence that when she was posted in the Police Station Jind as Moharar, then Head Constable Jagdeep deputed her at about 4.00 in the Safe Guard House for protection of the run away couples. Constable Mahabir had consumed liquor in the Guard room. On that day at 7.00 p.m. a well known companion of mine came to Safe House Guard come to me for handing over the BA mark sheet and after handing over the mark sheet in the presence of all, he went away. I do not agree with the defence statement submitted by Lady Constable Sonia no. 1056/Jind. The charges against Lady Constable Sonia no. 1056/Jind are fully proved.

In her explanation to the show cause notice and before the Enquiry Officer was that the person who had visited her was well known to her and had come to hand over a BA mark sheet. After handing over the mark sheet to her in the presence of all, he left. The Enquiry Officer has held that the petitioner called an unknown boy whose name and address is not known to the Safe House.

Even assuming that a man had come to the petitioner whether he was called or not is not enough to bring home the charge and award major punishment of withholding of stoppage of five future annual increments with permanent effect.

Mr. Sunil Nehra, learned Sr. DAG, Haryana has not been able to point out from the record presented in this writ petition as to whether the petitioner called an unknown man at 7 PM to meet her while she was on duty. There is no law I know or can think of which prohibits a private person from visiting a public servant while on duty without prior information. The post of Constable is a post of public dealing. I am infact horrified at the mindset of those who initiated the charge. This case shows the primitive mind of man which should not find modern judicial approval in this day and age. If we assume that the petitioner''s boyfriend had come to see her at 7 PM while she was on duty, the lady would have no control over someone else''s action. A mountain has been made out of nothing. I feel that no reasonable man should have ever taken the decision or even to have issued a charge-sheet on such an innocuous and trifling matter. The punishment imposed shocks the conscience of the Court and I have no hesitation in quashing the orders of punishment many times over. It is not enough for the State to argue that due process was followed at the enquiry and the procedure laid down in the rules was immaculately observed. When the motive and foundation of the issuance of the charge-sheet itself is morally and ethically wrong then the State cannot hide behind procedure duly followed. It is one thing to say that an enquiry is not vitiated by error in procedure and another to say that in any event, the charge should be sustained just because Inspector Paramjit Singh, SHO is the custodian of morality. This woman has been wronged and an corrective writ should issue in her favour forthwith. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is allowed with costs quantified at Rs. 20,000/- to be paid to the petitioner. Costs be recovered from all those who thought out the misadventure. The Director General of Police, Haryana is directed to cause holding of an enquiry by an educated police officer who has been through university education against the perpetrator/s of such a heinous accusation, fix wrongdoing and take suitable stringent action against those found guilty and punish them in accordance with law as per rules apart from wasting public time on a useless matter and place the findings arrived at, and action taken, on the record of this case after it is disposed of today and to do so within 4 months. After all the charge is not that there was any delinquency in performance of duty or that by a brief interlude the Safe House was jeopardised or exposed to danger. Let a message go that the wrongdoer holding public office and paid by public exchequer will not escape from this Court for squandering public time which energy could have been spent on cracking crime which must be the last thing on the mind of the SHO. This is the only method to restore the honour and modesty of the petitioner at her work place. The Director General of Police, Haryana would do well to sensitize such police officials who may implode the uniformed force from within and cause civil unrest. No lady should have been treated like Sonia was.