Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1743 (ALL)

Ram Karan Pandey v. State of U. P.

2003-08-05

RAKESH TIWARI

body2003
JUDGMENT : Rakesh Tiwari, J. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of suspension dated 8.11.1995 in contemplation of enquiry for obtaining appointment as constable in VIII Battalion, P.A.C. on 1.10.1984, on the basis of a fake High School Mark-sheet though he was High School fail and was ineligible for appointment. 3. The contention of the Petitioner is that he is High School fail and was appointed under sports quota being a sportsman. He was suspended in 1995 in contemplation of certain charges of enquiry. It is submitted that neither the department has served charge-sheet on him nor it has been filed before any court but he is continued to be kept under suspension by Respondent No. 2 vide order dated 8.12.1995. It is also contended that to keep continue the Petitioner under suspension for indefinite period since 1995 without any charge-sheet or enquiry is illegal and against law. Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that an F.I.R. had also been lodged on the same allegations u/s 420, I.P.C., Police Station Cant., District Bareilly, on 7.11.1995, which was registered as Case Crime No. 580 of 1995. In the crime too no charge-sheet has been filed in the criminal court. 4. It is submitted by the counsel that the Petitioner possessed minimum qualification, i.e., class 8th, pass at the relevant time, required for recruitment as police constable under Regulation 415 of the police regulation and under the U.P. Police Regulations, 496, no power is vested in Respondent No. 2 to pass order of suspension in contemplation of an enquiry. He submits that he is suffering irreparable loss and injury as he is under continued suspension for about 8 years without any enquiries. 5. Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent No. 2 by the Deputy Commandant, VIIIth Battalion, P.A.C., Bareilly. It has been averred in the aforesaid counter-affidavit that an anonymous undated and unsigned complaint was received in respect of the Petitioner to the effect that he had obtained appointment as constable on basis of fake High School Mark-sheet though he was ineligible, as he had not passed High School Examination. The anonymous and undated complaint is as under: Mr. It has been averred in the aforesaid counter-affidavit that an anonymous undated and unsigned complaint was received in respect of the Petitioner to the effect that he had obtained appointment as constable on basis of fake High School Mark-sheet though he was ineligible, as he had not passed High School Examination. The anonymous and undated complaint is as under: Mr. Kapoor Director General of Police Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow Respected Sir, Sri Ram Karan Pandey S/o Late Sri R. A. Pandey R/o 62, Rafiyabad, Near Garhi Chauki, Bareilly, working as constable P.A.C., VIIIth Battalion and presently posted at Bareilly. Sri Ram Karan Pandey mis-representing himself as a U.P.P. constable as against P.A.C. and has affixed U.P.P. Board at his main door of the house. In this way he is befooling innocent people and earning a huge undue amount. Apart from the above he is ineligible constable but at the time of his appointment, he submitted fake and false High School Mark-sheet showing as High School passed. Kindly take immediate necessary action. Thanking You. Yours Faithfully XYZ 6. It is further averred in the counter-affidavit that a preliminary enquiry was conducted in the complaint and report dated 6.11.1995 was submitted. It is stated in this report that the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P., Allahabad, vide their letter dated 5.8.1995, gave the following details in respect of High School Examination of the Petitioner: 7. Not being satisfied with this letter of Madhyamik Siksha Parishad dated 5.8.1995 further enquiry was made and it found that copies of the certificates submitted by the Petitioner were not reliable. The Petitioner submitted his original mark-sheets and certificates have been destroyed in a fire, which ravished his village house where they had been kept. The conclusions in the preliminary enquiry report regarding the High School and Intermediate certificates is as under : 8. In paragraph 9 of the counter-affidavit it has been averred that according to the G.O. dated 6th June, 1977 issued on the recommendation of the "Gore Committee", the minimum eligibility qualification for the post of constable is High School and age between 18 to 20 years. The applicant was recruited on 1.10.1984 and as such the Police Regulations 409 and 415 are not applicable in this case. The relevant provisions in respect of recruitment of constable in the aforesaid G.O. order dated 6th June, 1977 are as under: (x) ... (y) ... (z) ... 9. The applicant was recruited on 1.10.1984 and as such the Police Regulations 409 and 415 are not applicable in this case. The relevant provisions in respect of recruitment of constable in the aforesaid G.O. order dated 6th June, 1977 are as under: (x) ... (y) ... (z) ... 9. Another affidavit along with stay vacation application dated 26.8.1998 was filed praying for vacation of the impugned order dated 7.11.1996 passed in the writ petition on behalf of Respondent No. 2. In this affidavit, it has been stated that in the preliminary enquiry Petitioner had filled certificates, which were not authentic, and that a criminal case No. 580 of 1995 u/s 420 of I.P.C., was pending. It has also been averred that charge-sheet has been submitted by the police in the aforesaid criminal case. 10. No rejoinder-affidavit has been filed. The facts in the counter-affidavit are unrebutted. 11. In the counter-affidavit dated 26.8.1998 and 16.4.1999 also there is no indication about the enquiry status of departmental enquiry and the criminal proceedings in case No. 580 of 1995. Neither the counsel for the Petitioner nor the State counsel is aware about the status and fate of the criminal case against the Petitioner. They are also not aware whether the departmental enquiry against the Petitioner has been initiated or not. 12. No person can be kept under suspension for indefinite period without holding any domestic enquiry. From the counter-affidavits filed by the Respondents it appears that only preliminary enquiry was conducted and the Petitioner is kept continuously under suspension in contemplation of proper domestic enquiry with effect from, 8.11.1995. The Respondents have not held any departmental enquiry for the last about eight years and as such suspension order cannot be sustained. 13. For the reasons stated above the writ petition challenging impugned order of suspension is allowed and the order of suspension dated 8.12.1995 is set aside. 14. No order as to costs.