Punjab and Haryana High Court upholds penalty on cop for disregarding summons - ECAS Punjab

Punjab and Haryana High Court upholds penalty on cop for disregarding summons

Share This

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, August 5

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the punishment of two annual increments stoppage imposed upon a senior Punjab Police officer for his failure to appear before a trial court despite issuance of summons and warrants on no less than 23 occasions. Justice Deepak Sibal made it clear that the petitioner was required to act with responsibility to set an example for his subordinates. Unfortunately, he acted otherwise.

Raminder Singh, serving as SP (Detective), Civil Lines, Hoshiarpur, had moved the High Court against the state government and another respondent for quashing of order dated August 26, 2019, regarding the stoppage of two annual increments without future effect. He had also challenged the inquiry report dated May 21, 2019, vide which he was held guilty of the charges levelled against him.

Justice Sibal was told that a report was sent by UT Additional District and Sessions Judge to the High Court Registrar-General stating that the trial court issued 17 summons, three bailable warrants and three non-bailable warrants to the petitioner for appearing as a prosecution witness in connection with a murder case registered in March 2016 at Mauli Jagran police station. But the petitioner appeared before the court on July 25, 2018, upon issuance of non-bailable warrants.

“Therefore, you have committed grave negligence by not answering the summons/warrants issued by the court for 23 times,” read the charge levelled against the petitioner. Justice Sibal asserted a perusal of the charge revealed that the petitioner had been charged with negligence on account of his non-appearance in a trial at Chandigarh in spite of the fact that he had been issued summons on 17 occasions and bailable and non-warrants on three occasions each.

Dismissing the petition, Justice Sibal made it clear that the findings of guilt regarding the petitioner’s negligence were found to be reasonable and not perverse.

from The Tribune https://ift.tt/30ueBdE

No comments:

Post a Comment