2025:HHC:8389 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2856 of 2023 Decided on: 1st April, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jagat Ram …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Dr. Rajesh Kumar Parmar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge A departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner. It culminated in issuance of penalty order by the disciplinary authority on 03.02.1996. Petitioner was imposed penalty of withholding of one annual increment permanently. Appeal preferred by the petitioner against the aforesaid penalty order was rejected by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Southern Range, Shimla on 21.09.1999. 21 years thereafter, petitioner preferred a revision petition against the order dated 21.09.1999 passed by the appellate authority. His revision petition was held as not maintainable as per Rule 16.32 of the Punjab Police 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:8389 Rules vide communication dated 30.07.2021 (Annexure P-5). Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking following substantive reliefs:- “(a) by issuance of the writ of certiorari, “orders passed by the worthy SP Solan, vide letter No.4114-17 dated 5-12- 1996 as well as order dated 21.9.1999 of appellant authority and impugned order dated 30.07.2021 passed by respondent No.2 whereby the punishment of forfeiture of one-year increment permanently awarded by the then SP Solan has been upheld against present petitioner, may very kindly be quashed and set aside; (b) by way of writ of Mandamus to the respondents with direction to release the salary increment to the petitioner which is withheld by the respondent department on the basis of wrong and illegal orders, in the interest of Equity, justice and fair play.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 3. The case against the petitioner is that he was caught red handed in the year 1995 by the then Additional Superintendent of Police while taking bribe from a Truck Driver as an entry charge. Departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. The disciplinary authority on 03.02.1996, ordered punishment of forfeiture of one annual increment permanently upon the petitioner. Petitioner’s appeal against this order was rejected on 21.09.1999 by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Southern Range, Shimla. Petitioner did not lay any challenge to the aforesaid orders in accordance with law. It was 21 years later that he filed revision petition, which as 3 2025:HHC:8389 noticed above, was also dismissed on 30.07.2021 on the ground of having been filed after a lapse of 21 years, hence, not maintainable under Rule 16.32 of the Punjab Police Rules, as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh. 4. To a query of the Court as to why petitioner did not take appropriate steps for assailing the impugned orders at the relevant time, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not apprised about passing of the appellate order, rejecting his appeal on 21.09.1999. This submission cannot be digested in the facts of the given case. Admittedly, the petitioner had been imposed punishment of forfeiture of one annual increment permanently. Petitioner had been in receipt of reduced pay on account of that punishment. The respondents in their reply have categorically pleaded that information about rejection of petitioner’s appeal on 21.09.1999 had been supplied to him under office endorsement Nos.32661-64, dated 28.09.1999; Petitioner has now concocted a story of having not been supplied with the copy of appellate order because at this stage, the respondents have destroyed the record of the case taking into consideration the age of the record. Even going by the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner that he was not supplied the copy of the 4 2025:HHC:8389 appellate order, it was for the petitioner to have made an effort to know as to what happened to his appeal. He could not be expected to wait for eternity for the decision of the appeal. Even the revision petition preferred by the petitioner in the year 2021 against the appellate order dated 21.09.1999 does not contain any single averment that the petitioner was not supplied the copy of appellate order at the relevant time. Rather the pleadings therein were that “petitioner remained ignorant regarding the impact of above punishment but when the petitioner come to know through his counterpart that petitioner has suffered an immense financial loss of lacs rupees from the year 1995 till date. The petitioner is due for his retirement in the year 2026. Petitioner has no efficacious remedy to redress above huge financial loss except to pray before the worthy DGP/HP Shimla”. 5. The sum total of the above discussion is that the petitioner had preferred the revision petition before the competent authority after a lapse of 21 years from the passing of the appellate order, affirming the penalty imposed upon him by the Disciplinary Authority. Hence, the respondents had justifiably not entertained the same as not maintainable under the applicable rules. Huge delay and laches in filing the writ petition on 27.04.2023, 5 2025:HHC:8389 assailing the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and appellate authority on 03.02.1996 and 21.09.1999, respectively, have not been explained. For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in the instant writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua April 01, 2025 Judge Mukesh