Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 402 (ALL)

VASHISHTHA SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2002-03-16

S.N.SRIVASTAVA

body2002
S. N. SRIVASTAVA, J. ( 1 ) THE writ petition is directed against the order dated 3rd January, 1998 dismissing the petitioner in exercise of power under Rule 8 (2) (b) of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ). ( 2 ) THE petitioner was initially appointed as Police Constable in the year 1974, He was promoted on 15. 12. 1982 as Head Constable. At the relevant time, he was working in Police Station, george Town, Allahabad. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad by the impugned order dated 3. 1. 1998 dismissed the petitioner in exercise of power under Rule 8 (2) (b) of the rules. ( 3 ) RULE 8 is produced below : 8. Dismissed and removal.-- (1) No police officer shall be dismissed or removed from service by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority. (2) No police officer shall be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank except after proper inquiry and disciplinary proceedings as contemplated by these rules : provided that this rule shall not apply : (a) Where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge ; or (b) Where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such enquiry ; or (c) Where the Government is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to hold such enquiry. ( 4 ) HEARD Sri C. B. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Om Prakash Gupta, learned standing counsel at length. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contends that in exercise of power under the Rule 8 (1), no police officer could be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank except after proper inquiry and disciplinary proceedings under the rule. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contends that in exercise of power under the Rule 8 (1), no police officer could be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank except after proper inquiry and disciplinary proceedings under the rule. It was further contended that in exercise of power under the Rule 8 (2) (b) of the rules, the authority has to record reasons in writing to the effect that "the inquiry is not reasonably practicable" and in the present case, the order does not speak any reason for dispensing with the inquiry and as such, the order dismissing the petitioner under the said rule is without any competence, arbitrary and is liable to be quashed. In reply to the aforesaid contention, learned standing counsel contends that the order was rightly passed strictly in accordance with the rule. The order is legal and was rightly passed with full compliance of the rule 8 (2) (b ). It was further contended that the allegations are very serious and no police officer could remain in police force on the basis of these allegations. ( 6 ) I perused the impugned order and considered the arguments of learned counsels. The only reason given in the impugned order is that the immediate proceedings are necessary to be taken against the petitioner as the allegations are very serious and it is passed in the interest of State and public. Impugned order does not disclose any reason for dispensing with disciplinary proceedings and why it is not reasonably practicable. Since no reason has been recorded, the order passed by Senior Superintendent of Police is arbitrary and is not sustainable in law. ( 7 ) FROM the material available on record and the pleadings of the parties also, it is established that the disciplinary authority has not passed any order recording any reason in writing for not holding disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. ( 8 ) THE reasons are the links between the conclusion and the material considered. It speaks how the mind of the disciplinary authority works. Since the rule itself provides recording of reasons by the appointing authority in support of decisions to the effect that disciplinary proceeding is not reasonably practicable. It was mandatory for the disciplinary authority to pass order recording reasons for the same. It speaks how the mind of the disciplinary authority works. Since the rule itself provides recording of reasons by the appointing authority in support of decisions to the effect that disciplinary proceeding is not reasonably practicable. It was mandatory for the disciplinary authority to pass order recording reasons for the same. ( 9 ) MY view is supported by judgment of Supreme Court in Union of India v. M. C. Kapoor, AIR 1974 SC 87 . Relevant para is produced below : ". . . . . . . . . . . . ,. . . . . . . . . . . . Reasons are the links between the material on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject-matter for a decision whether it Is purely administrative or quasi-Judicial. They should reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and the conclusions reached. Only in this way can opinions or decisions recorded be shown to be manifestly just and reasonable. . . . . " ( 10 ) ADMITTEDLY, no charge-sheet was served to the petitioner and no disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him. Impugned order was not passed after giving the opportunity of hearing to petitioner as required under Rule 8 (1) of the said rule. ( 11 ) THE satisfaction of the disciplinary authority on the question relating to not holding the disciplinary proceedings must be born from the reasons recorded in support of the conclusion te. , holding disciplinary proceedings is not reasonably practicable, so that, it could be judged on merits. ( 12 ) MY view is supported by Full Bench decision of this Court in Maksudan Pathak v. Security officer, Eastern Railway, Mughalsarai and another, 1981 SLJ 31. Paras 22 and 25 are produced below : "22. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the words reasonably practicable would apply in a case where the authority cannot, in a reasonable manner put into practice the clauses in relation to an enquiry, namely, because of certain facts and circumstances peculiar to each case, the authority cannot, in a reasonable manner, hold an enquiry. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the words reasonably practicable would apply in a case where the authority cannot, in a reasonable manner put into practice the clauses in relation to an enquiry, namely, because of certain facts and circumstances peculiar to each case, the authority cannot, in a reasonable manner, hold an enquiry. There may be a case where the charged person may have absconded, or a case where in spite of the best efforts, the disciplinary authority may not have been able to serve the notice of the enquiry on the person charged or it may be a case where It is not possible for the person against whom the charge had been made to come and join, at the enquiry or there may be similar other valid reasons depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. 25. "we respectfully agree with the observations made in the case of State of Orissa v. Krishnaswami Murty, (supra) as well as Karam Singh v. Transport Commissioner, (supra ). In view of the principles laid down above, we have to examine whether, in the present case the order passed by the security officer, dispensing with the enquiry, was vitiated in law or not. There was no evidence on the record at all to show that any attempt was made to serve a notice on the petitioners. If an attempt had been made and the authority was not successful in serving the charge-sheet, it may have been a case where the authority may have come to a conclusion that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry in the case of Maqsoodan Pathak, the only ground for dispensing with the enquiry is the collusion with the local R. P. F. Staff. This circumstance relates to the merit of the charge and not to the practicability of holding an enquiry in the case of Kavindra Nath Rai similarly the only reason given is the possibility of collusion with the local R. P. F. This also cannot possibly be a reason for not holding the enquiry. The relevant considerations for passing the orders would have been the practicability of holding an enquiry and not whether the charge could be made out on the basis of the other evidence on the record or not. The relevant considerations for passing the orders would have been the practicability of holding an enquiry and not whether the charge could be made out on the basis of the other evidence on the record or not. in the case of Panchanand Stngh also, the only reason given is that he had developed influence at Pussauli and, as such, it may not have been possible to collect sufficient evidence. The mere inability. Or inefficiency of the investigating authority to obtain evidence to prove the charge cannot be a reason for dispensing with the enquiry. We are, therefore, of the opinion that in the Instant case, the orders dispensing with the enquiry were wholly arbitrary. There was no evidence on the record, which could establish that the enquiry was not reasonably practicable". In that case, similar Rule 14 (2) of the Railways Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 was considered by this Court and Full Bench laid down the law on the question what is the meaning of reasonably practicable and how this power could be exercised. ( 13 ) MY view is further supported by single Judge decision of this Court in Ram Das Yadav v. Sena Nayak, 45th Battalion P. A. C. , Contingent Konkrajhar, Assam and others, (2001) 2 uplbec 1775 . ( 14 ) IN view of fact stated above, impugned order cannot be sustained in law. ( 15 ) IN the circumstance, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 3. 1. 1998, annexure-5 to the writ petition, is quashed. Allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature for a member of police force as such. The appointing authority is directed to pass fresh order in accordance with rule/law within a reasonable period. ( 16 ) IN these circumstances, no order to costs. .