Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1259 (ALL)

RAJ NET CHAUHAN v. STATE OF U P

2003-05-22

A.K.YOG, UMESHWAR PANDEY

body2003
A. K. YOG, J. The petitioner, who was working as constable in U. P. Police Department, challenges the orders dated 13-7-1994, 24-11-1994 and 26-8-1997 (Annexures 4, 5, & 8 to the writ petition) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and prays for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the same. He also seeks, through this petition, a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate, him in service on his original post of constable in the Department. 2. The facts narrated in the present petition are that while working as a constable at Police Station Holagarh, District Allahabad on 1-6-1992 when the petitioner applied for two days casual leave with effect from 3-6-1992 the same was granted. But inspite of the fact that he was posted on duty of santari at the Police Station on 2-6-1992 he absented without obtaining any leave or permission from the Station Officer concerned. Thereafter, he was arrested by the police of Tarwa Police Station District Azamagarh in a case of murder, which was registered at Crime No. 64 of 1992. He was sent to lockup as a named accused in the aforesaid case and could report to his duty only on 2-7-1992 after his release on bail. The petitioner was accordingly charged for his unauthorized absence from duty and the enquiry proceeded. 3. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charges admitting to the aforesaid fact that he had left the Police Station Holagarh 2-6-1992 after obtaining causal leave for two days with effect from 3-6-1992. He requested the Head Constable concerned for making a note of his departure from the Police Station in the General Diary and on his assurance that the entry in the relevant General Diary about such departure of the petitioner would be made, he left the Police Station. After he reached home, he was falsely implicated in the aforesaid criminal case of murder and the local police which, was seized with the investigation of the case, arrested him. As a result of his detention in the lockup he could come to join his duties at the Police Station Holagarh only on 2-7-1992. 4. After he reached home, he was falsely implicated in the aforesaid criminal case of murder and the local police which, was seized with the investigation of the case, arrested him. As a result of his detention in the lockup he could come to join his duties at the Police Station Holagarh only on 2-7-1992. 4. The Enquiry Officer, in the aforesaid disciplinary proceedings, found that on 2-6-1992 the petitioner was assigned santari duty at the Police Station from 9 a. m. to 12 noon, but without obtaining permission from the concerned authority, he left the Police Station and neglected his duty. He was found absent without making entry (of his departure) in the General Diary and later on when he reached his village home, he was implicated in the criminal case of murder and rioting etc. and arrested. Finding the petitioner guilty for the unauthorized absence from duty, the punishing authority (SSP, Allahabad), acting upon the enquiry report, awarded the punishment of dismissal. 5. This award of punishment was challenged by the petitioner in appeal, which too was dismissed, vide impugned order dated 24-11-1994 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition ). Subsequent thereto the petitioner preferred claim petition challenging the order of punishing authority as well as the appellate authority before the State Public Service Tribunal where also he could not get any relief and the petition was dismissed, vide impugned judgment dated 26-8-1997 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition ). 6. The petitioner being aggrieved with the aforesaid three orders of punishing authority, appellate authority and the Tribunal (Annexures 4, 5, & 8 to the writ petition) has approached this Court. While challenging the aforesaid orders, the petitioner took grounds inter alia stating that penalty of dismissal from service imposed against him in respect of the charges does not commensurate with the gravity of alleged misconduct. Such extreme penalty is imposed only in respect of charges of grave misconduct. For unauthorised absence of a day from duty the imposition of extreme penalty upon a civil servant, in unwarranted. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner emphasized before us that a days absence from duty is the only charge, which has attracted the award of extreme punishment of dismissal. Such a misconduct of a days absence from duty is not so grave. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner emphasized before us that a days absence from duty is the only charge, which has attracted the award of extreme punishment of dismissal. Such a misconduct of a days absence from duty is not so grave. In the present case of petitioner, while awarding punishment, the fact that he was involved in a murder case and was arrested in his village home by the local police has weighed too much in the mind of the Enquiry Officer and the punishing authority to hold the petitioner guilty of a misconduct of gravest nature. Such punishment should be awarded in the cases of misconduct, which shows incorrigibility and renders one unfit and disqualified for the service. 8. The learned Counsel while making the aforesaid contention has, however, not disputed the misconduct of alleged absence of the petitioner from duty on 2-6-1992. Citing the case law of Kuldeep Singh v. The Commissioner of Police and others, reported in 1999 (1) ESC 339 (SC) and U. P. State Road Transport Corporation & others v. Mahesh Kumar Mishra & others, reported in 2000 (1) LBESR 1060 (SC) : JT 2000 (3) SC 173, he has further emphasized that the award of punishment of dismissal in the aforesaid two cases has been held by the apex Court to be illegal and disproportionate. 9. So far as the aforesaid two cases of Kuldeep Singh and U. P. State Road Transport Corporation (supra) are concerned, the ratio laid down by the apex Court are not applicable, as the present case factually stands apart to those cases. In the case of Kuldeep Singh (supra) the Honble apex Court found the dismissal from service of a constable of Delhi Police to be illegal because the charge of retention of sum of money handed-over to the constable by the complainant was not found to be established in accordance with law as the complainant had refused to have given the said amount to him and he was not examined in the enquiry held before the Enquiry Officer. In the other case it was a bus conductor, who was dismissed from service for having issued tickets of Rs. 150 inspite of Rs. 180 to the passengers. Those passengers were not examined on the spot when the checking was conducted nor they were examined during the enquiry. In the other case it was a bus conductor, who was dismissed from service for having issued tickets of Rs. 150 inspite of Rs. 180 to the passengers. Those passengers were not examined on the spot when the checking was conducted nor they were examined during the enquiry. It was under these circumstances that the Honble Supreme Court found that the interference under Article 226 of the Constitution made by the High Court in regard to the quantum of punishment was justified. Thus, the aforesaid two cases relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner do not help to the arguments rendered by the learned Counsel in respect of the award of punishment being disproportionate to the alleged misconduct with which the petitioner was charged. 10. The petitioner is a member of State of U. P. Police, a disciplinary force. He was directed to perform his duty as santari at the Police Station of his posting on the said date (2-6-1992 ). For no good reason shown by him in his reply to the charges he absented from the said duty and left the police station without making any endorsement in the General Diary maintained for the purpose. As a member of police force, the petitioner is supposed to maintain the standards of discipline while performing his duty assigned from time to time. If such a police personnel flouting the orders of his superior does not stick to the strict discipline of the force and absents without any reasonable cause, it would definitely constitute a gravest misconduct warranting his dismissal from service. The word misconduct has not a precise definition of its own. Its reflection receive its connotation from the context, the delinquency in its performance and its effect on the discipline and the nature of the duty. Such misconduct may involve improper or wrong behaviour, forbidden act, a transgression of established and definite rule of action or code of conduct. The police service in obviously a disciplined service and it requires to maintain strict standard of such discipline. Laxity in this behalf erodes established norms of the service causing serious effects in the maintenance of law and order. The police service in obviously a disciplined service and it requires to maintain strict standard of such discipline. Laxity in this behalf erodes established norms of the service causing serious effects in the maintenance of law and order. The petitioner in the present case by flouting the order of his superior authority when did not join the duty of santari on the said date and left the police station without permission or information, this would constitute gravest misconduct warranting his dismissal from service. The authorities while awarding this extreme penalty upon the petitioner do not appear to have transgressed any established norm or propriety expected from them in the present matter of disciplinary proceeding. They were wholly justified in awarding penalty of dismissal and in passing of the order impugned. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, in this context has relied and cited the case law State of Punjab and others v. Ram Singh Ex. Constable, reported in AIR 1992 SC 2188 . 11. The learned Standing Counsel while replying to the contentions of the petitioner has submitted that this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has certain norms of interference with the orders of inferior Tribunal and other authority. The High Court is not to go into the factual aspects of the matter. There is an existing limitation on it to that effect. The Tribunal as well as the punishing and appellate authorities have held the alleged misconduct of the petitioner as a grave misconduct while awarding the extreme penalty of dismissal against him. This punishment has been so awarded keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case inasmuch as the nature of service which is expected of a person belonging to a disciplined force. If the authorities below keeping in view of this fact that the petitioner being a member of the disciplined force of the State Police when deliberately absented from duty, committed grave misconduct this Court while acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not supposed to interfere in the said finding recorded by them. If the authorities below keeping in view of this fact that the petitioner being a member of the disciplined force of the State Police when deliberately absented from duty, committed grave misconduct this Court while acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not supposed to interfere in the said finding recorded by them. The learned Counsel in this context has placed reliance on the case law of M/s. Lakshmi Precision Screws Ltd. v. Ram Bahagat, reported in 2002 (2) LBESR 927 (SC) : JT 2002 (6) SC 162 and The Regional Manager & Disciplinary Authority, State Bank of India, Hyderabad and another v. S. Mohammed Gaffar, reported in 2002 (2) LBESR 923 (SC) : JT 2002 (6) SC 157. 12. In the aforesaid view of the matter that the petitioner being a police personnel belonging to a disciplined force made his deliberate absence from duty and did not perform the assigned job of santari on that date 2-6-1992, instead he left for his village home where he is shown to have involved himself in a murder case which has ended into his conviction from the trial Court, his alleged misconduct is not to be taken lightly and if the punishing authority has awarded the extreme penalty of dismissal from his service and the same has been confirmed by the appellate authority as well as the Tribunal there is no scope for interference in such orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by this Court. 13. In the result, the writ petition, having no merit fails and it is hereby dismissed. 14. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .