Amita Devi vs State Of Haryana And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 6072 P&H

121.

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                    CHANDIGARH

                                CWP-13333-2022
                                Date of Decision: 04.07.2022

AMITA DEVI                                                .... Petitioner

                                Versus



STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS                               .... Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR


Present:-   Mr. Rajat Mor, Advocate,
            for the petitioner.
                                ----

JAISHREE THAKUR.J (Oral)

This is a petition that has been filed under Article 226/227 of the

Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari

quashing the order dated 18.08.2006 (Annexure P-5) whereby punishment

awarded to the petitioner has been enhanced, and further to quash the order

dated 11.08.2008 (Annexure P-7) by which her name has been removed from

List C-1.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that when the petitioner

was posted as Constable in Police Station City Bhiwani, on 15.10.1998, an

accused, who was on police remand, escaped from the police station. The

petitioner was charge-sheeted and an inquiry was conducted against her. In

that regard, an FIR No.475, dated 15.10.1998, under Sections 223, 224 IPC

was also registered at Police Station City Bhiwani, against the petitioner.

Vide order dated 04.12.2003, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani held her

1 of 4

guilty of the charge and awarded rigorous imprisonment for 8 months and to

pay a fine of Rs.200/-. Against the said conviction, the petitioner preferred

appeal wherein vide judgment dated 03.12.2004, the petitioner was released

on probation. It was specifically made clear that such release on probation

shall not amount to disqualification in terms of Section 12 of Probation of

Offenders Act, 1958. On 18.08.2005, respondent No.3 imposed a punishment

of stoppage of two annual increments with permanent effect upon the

petitioner. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred appeal, which

stood dismissed. However, respondent No.2 served a show cause notice

while exercising powers under Rule 16.28 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 for

enhancement of the punishment and ultimately vide order dated 18.08.2006,

the punishment was enhanced to stoppage of three annual increments with

permanent effect. Thereafter, the petitioner challenged the said order by way

of a mercy petition before the Government of Haryana which appears to have

not been decided as yet.

Adverse remarks came to be recorded in the ACR of the

petitioner for the period w.e.f. 01.04.2005 to 09.11.2005 and on that basis,

her name has been removed from list C-1 vide order dated 11.08.2008

(Annexure P-7).

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would

submit that one Neelam Devi, who was also an accused with the present

petitioner in the same FIR, was awarded similar punishment of stoppage of

three annual increments with permanent effect. She challenged that order

before this Court by way of CWP No.13255 of 2009, which writ petition was

2 of 4

admitted on 19.02.2010. However, the punishment has been reduced to

stoppage of three annual increments 'without permanent effect' by the

Government in revision petition vide order dated 14.07.2010 (Annexure P-8).

Counsel would submit that the petitioner also approached this Court by way

of CWP No.9258 of 2011, however, that writ petition was got dismissed as

withdrawn vide order dated 24.05.2011 with liberty to pursue her remedy

with the respondents. He would further submit that it was thereafter that the

petitioner approached the Government in mercy appeal Annexure P-10, on

11.04.2016 and a reminder dated 08.04.2021 (Annexure P-11). He would

submit that the petitioner would be satisfied in case her mercy appeal is

decided in a time bound manner.

Notice of motion.

At this stage, Ms. Kirti Singh, DAG, Haryana, who is present in

Court, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents and submits that the

respondents will look into the matter and will take a decision on the mercy

appeal of the petitioner.

Let sufficient number of copies of the complete paper book be

supplied to her during the course of day.

Without commenting on merits of the case, the present petition

is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1 to decide the mercy appeal

Annexure P-10 of the petitioner within a period of three months from the

date of receipt of certified copy of this order, in accordance with law taking

into consideration order dated 14.07.2010 (Annexure P-8) passed qua

Neelam Devi and convey the decision to the petitioner. In case of failure to

3 of 4

do so, the officer responsible for the lapse would be liable to costs of

Rs.20,000/- from his personal pocket, to be deposited with the Punjab and

Haryana High Court Advocates Welfare Fund.

                                                (JAISHREE THAKUR)
04.07.2022                                            JUDGE
sanjeev
             Whether Reportable:         Yes/No
             Whether Reportable:         Yes/No




                                4 of 4