1. This petition has been filed against the order passed by respondent no.1 dated 19.01.2011 whereby, the petitioners have been imposed the penalty of placing them in the Pay-scale of Rs.5,200/- from Rs.8,300/- and Rs.8,985/- respectively for a period of five years without any increments with immediate effect, which was confirmed by respondent no.2 by order dated 28.05.2012.
2. The facts in brief are that the petitioners herein are serving as Constables in the Police Department of the respondent-State. On 15.01.2007 the petitioners and a co-employee were entrusted with the duty of bringing three prisoners from District Jail, Bhavnagar to the concerned Court for trial. However, before reaching the Court, one of the prisoners was successful in fleeing from custody. An FIR in that regard was lodged before the concerned Police Station. Subsequently, the petitioners were suspended from duty by an order dated on 20.01.2007 passed by the D.S.P., Bhavnagar. Thereafter, the petitioners were permitted to resume their duties by order dated 28.03.2007 passed by the same authority.
3. Thereafter, departmental inquiry was held against the petitioners and after following due procedure, the punishment of stoppage of one increment for one year was imposed on the petitioners. Against the said order, the petitioners preferred appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, who by order dated 10.03.2008, reduced the punishment. However, on 08.11.2010, the petitioners were served with Notice by respondent no.1 asking as to why the punishment earlier imposed should not be enhanced. The petitioners filed their reply to the said Notice.
4. Being dissatisfied with the reply, respondent no.1-authority imposed the penalty of placing the petitioners at the minimum pay-scale for a period of five years without any increments without future effect and to consider the period of suspension as such, by order dated 19.01.2011. Against the said order, the petitioners filed an appeal before respondent no.2-authority. However, the same was rejected by an order dated 28.05.2012. Hence, this petition.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. In the departmental inquiry conducted against the petitioners, it was proved against the petitioners that they had not informed the factum of escape of the accused from police custody to the Control Room immediately after the incident but, had informed after a considerable period of time. This itself speaks volumes about the conduct of the petitioners. Had the petitioners informed the Control Room immediately, then the accused could have been nabbed at a much earlier time. However, the laxity on the part of the petitioners, intentional or non-intentional, could have led the accused to avoid law for all times.
6. Considering the gravity of incident, the respondent no.1-authority imposed the penalty in question, which was confirmed by respondent no.2-authority in appeal. No contention has been raised about the manner in which departmental proceedings were conducted against the petitioners. Therefore, the departmental proceedings were also initiated in accordance with law. In police force, a large degree of discipline is expected from the staff. The petitioners were found wanting in the discharging of their duties. Hence, in my opinion, the punishment imposed on the petitioners is just, legal and appropriate and I find no reasons to disturb the same.
7. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is summarily rejected.
[K.
S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/* Top