Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 2153 (ALL)

RAM NIWAS TIWARI v. STATE OF U. P.

2003-09-16

M.KATJU, UMESHWAR PANDEY

body2003
M. KATJU, UMESHWAR PANDCY, JJ. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed against the impugned order of the U. P. Public Services tribunal dated 29. 1. 1979, Annexure--5 to the writ petition. ( 2 ) WE have carefully perused the impugned order of the Tribunal as well as the order of the inspector General of Police dated 13. 8. 1970, Annexure-4 to the petition. ( 3 ) THE petitioner was a constable in the U. P. Police and grave charges were levelled against him. The charge-sheet dated 23. 1. 1965 was issued by the Superintendent of Police, Varanasi, the copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. A perusal of the said charge-sheet shows that the allegation against him was that while posted at police station Gopiganj district Varanasi from 9. 7. 1964 to 21. 2. 1965, the petitioner had criminal association with criminals like Sri Ahir, ibrahim, etc. and they committed crimes with his complicity. On 21. 2. 1965 at about noon or just after that the petitioner was seen in the company of the said Ibrahim and Sri Ahir at the shop of one Shital in qusba Gopiganj. The petitioner and both the above criminals took liquor together. A little after that the two aforesaid criminals pick-pocketed one Ram Nihore Pandey with the help of one other person in bazar Gopiganj, where he had come for shopping. Both these criminals were arrested with the assistance of other persons and the stolen property was recovered, but the third man succeeded in making good his escape. The petitioner reached the spot in plain clothes and made an attempt to get these criminals released. He also told Sri Ram nihore that he would not be able to get any witness and as such the case will not succeed and he might come to harm for lodging false F. I. R. and he should release the two criminals. However, sri Ram Nihore did not listen to the petitioner and took both the criminals to the police station gopiganj and lodged F. I. R. under Section 379, I. P. C. there. ( 4 ) ON these charges, an inquiry was held, copy of which is Annexure-2 to the petition. The inquiry Officer found the charges partly proved. The Inquiry Officer also held that the evidence created a doubt. ( 4 ) ON these charges, an inquiry was held, copy of which is Annexure-2 to the petition. The inquiry Officer found the charges partly proved. The Inquiry Officer also held that the evidence created a doubt. ( 5 ) IN our opinion an inquiry under Section 7 of the Indian Police Act is a departmental inquiry and not a criminal trial. Hence, the charges do not have to be proved like that of a criminal trial where the benefit of doubt goes to the accused. ( 6 ) THE Inquiry Officer recommended that a misconduct entry be given to the effect that the petitioner was suspected of association with criminals of Vaianasi city like Sri Ahir and Ibrahim and he had liquor with them on 21. 2. 1965. ( 7 ) THE petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, who confirmed the order of the Superintendent of Police, but in revision, the Inspector General of Police by his order dated 13. 8. 1970 set aside the orders of the Superintendent of Police and the Deputy inspector General of Police and issued show cause notice to the petitioner to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. True copy of the order dated 13. 4. 1970 is Annexure-3. Thereafter, the Inspector General of Police by order dated 13. 8. 1970 found the petitioner guilty of the charges and directed his dismissal from service. ( 8 ) AGGRIEVED, the petitioner approached the U. P. Public Service Tribunal but the Tribunal has dismissed his claim petition by the impugned order. Hence, this petition. ( 9 ) IN our opinion, the orders of the Superintendent of Police and Deputy Inspector General of police have merged into the order of the Inspector General of Police dated 13. 8. 1970, vide annexure-4. ( 10 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Inspector General of Police could not enhance the punishment. We do not agree. In fact, it had been conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner before the Tribunal that the Inspector General of Police has power of enhancement vide para 513 (b) of the U. P. Police Regulations as stated in para 5 of the order of the Tribunal. ( 11 ) A perusal of the order of the Inspector General of Police dated 13. 8. ( 11 ) A perusal of the order of the Inspector General of Police dated 13. 8. 1970, shows that findings of fact have been recorded against the petitioner that he was in complicity with criminals and had been seen in their company and had liquor with them. Criminals Ibrahim and sri Ahir have made confessions to corroborate the finding of the Inspector General of Police. The findings of guilt against the petitioner are very serious and they are findings of fact. Hence, we cannot interfere in writ jurisdiction. ( 12 ) A policemans duty is to uphold the law and order and to check criminals, but the petitioner was doing just the reverse. Hence, he was rightly dismissed from service. ( 13 ) PETITION is dismissed. .