Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1306 (ALL)

State of U. P. v. Dariao Singh

2005-07-21

J.M.PALIWAL, U.K.DHAON

body2005
JUDGMENT : U.K. Dhaon and J.M. Paliwal, JJ. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Sri Vivek Raj Singh who has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party No. 1. 2. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the State of Uttar Pradesh and others for quashing of the judgment and order dated 31.10.2003 passed by the opposite party No. 2 in Claim Petition No. 366 of 2001, Dariao Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. 3. The facts in brief are that the opposite party No. 1, Dariao Singh was recruited as constable in the Uttar Pradesh Police Force in June. 1975. On the basis of the service record and certain allegations relating to three criminal cases pending against the opposite party No. 1, the Superintendent of Police. Rae Bareilly, came to the conclusion that the enquiry was not practicable in the matters pending against the opposite party No. 1 and dispensing with the enquiry under Rule 8 (2) (b) of Uttar Pradesh P. Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (P and A) Rules, 1991, dismissed the opposite party No. 1 from service vide order dated 28 September, 2000. Against the said dismissal order, the opposite party No. 1, Dariao Singh filed an appeal but it was not disposed of till he filed claim petition before the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow, which was registered as Claim Petition No. 366 of 2001. During pendency of the claim petition, the appeal was also dismissed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Lucknow Range, Lucknow on 2.2.2001. 4. After hearing both the parties the State Public Services Tribunal came to the conclusion that there were no sufficient grounds to dispense with the enquiry under Rule 8 (2) (b) of Uttar Pradesh P. Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (P and A) Rules, 1991 and the opposite party No.1 had been dismissed without conducting any departmental enquiry and as such the order dismissing the Petitioner from service cannot be said to be legal and. in accordance with law. With these findings the learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition quashing the order dated 28.9.2000 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Rae Bareilly and also the order dated 2.2.2001, passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Lucknow Range, Lucknow in appeal. in accordance with law. With these findings the learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition quashing the order dated 28.9.2000 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Rae Bareilly and also the order dated 2.2.2001, passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Lucknow Range, Lucknow in appeal. The Petitioners were directed to reinstate the opposite party No.1 within a month after the receipt of the certified copy of the judgment. 5. Feeling aggrieved with the judgment and order dated 31.10.2003 passed by the learned Tribunal, the Petitioners have approached this Court. 6. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the service record of the opposite party No.1 was not good and some criminal cases were registered against the opposite party No.1, who was also involved in acuities and due to the terror of opposite party No.1, it was not possible to collect the evidence in the enquiry proceedings. He further submits that there was sufficient material against the opposite party No.1 for not holding an enquiry and for dismissing the opposite party No.1 under the provisions of Rule 8 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 and the learned Tribunal has wrongly held that no reason was assigned while dispensing with the disciplinary proceedings. 7. Sri V.R. Singh, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 1 has contended that on account of baseless allegations, the opposite party No. 1 was dismissed from service by the Superintendent of Police, Rae Barelly and the appeal was also dismissed during the pendency of the claim petition. He further submits that no departmental enquiry was conducted and no opportunity of hearing was given to the opposite party No. 1 before passing the dismissal order and the learned Tribunal has rightly quashed the dismissal order passed by the Superintendent of Police, Rae Bareilly and also the order passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Lucknow Range, Lucknow in appeal on 2.2.2001. The learned Counsel for opposite party No. 1 has placed reliance on Vashishtha Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2002) 3 AWC 1894 Bhola Nath Dev Banshi and Ors. v. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kanpur Range, Kanpur and Anr. 2002 (5) AWC 3507 and Ram Das Yadav v. Sena Nayak, 45th Battalion P.A.C. Contingent Konkrajhar, Assam and Ors. 2001 (2) UPLBEC 1775 . 8. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2002) 3 AWC 1894 Bhola Nath Dev Banshi and Ors. v. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kanpur Range, Kanpur and Anr. 2002 (5) AWC 3507 and Ram Das Yadav v. Sena Nayak, 45th Battalion P.A.C. Contingent Konkrajhar, Assam and Ors. 2001 (2) UPLBEC 1775 . 8. We have considered the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 9. The main allegations against the opposite party No. 1 were that he was involved in three criminal cases. It was apprehended that the witnesses would not give evidence against the opposite party No. 1 and accordingly, the disciplinary proceedings were dispensed with and the dismissal order was passed. 10. It is the admitted case of the parties that the opposite party No. 1, Dariao Singh was dismissed from service only on the basis of his service record and the criminal cases pending against him dispensing with the departmental enquiry under Rule 8 (2) (b) of Uttar Pradesh P. Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (P and A) Rules, 1991. Rule 8 (2) (b) is as under: 8. Dismissal and removal. (1) .... (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) .... (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. 11. In view of Rule 8 (2) (b) it was the duty of the Superintendent of Police, Rae Bareilly to record the reasons on account of which the disciplinary proceedings against the opposite party No. 1 were not practicable. The record reveals that the dismissal order dated 28.9.2000 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Rae Bareilly is based only on the report of Circle Officer submitted before him. It is mentioned in the order that on account of terror of opposite party No. 1 the witnesses would not give any evidence against him in the enquiry proceedings and it would not be possible to punish the opposite party No. l. With these reasonings the Superintendent of Police, Rae Bareilly dismissed the opposite party No. 1 from service without holding an enquiry. 12. 12. In the order, there is no mentioned that efforts were made by the Department to take evidence of witnesses against the opposite party No. 1 and which witness did not appear due to the terror of the opposite party No. 1. Mere stating that the witnesses would not give evidence against the opposite party No. 1 due to his terror is not sufficient. 13. In the case of Vashishtha Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2002) 3 AWC 1894 it has been held that the order not disclosing any reason for dispensing with the disciplinary proceedings is not legally sustainable. In the case of Bhola Nath Deo Banshi and Ors. v. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kanpur Range, Kanpur and Ors. 2002 (5) AWC 3507 , it has been observed that the dismissal from service without awaiting a detailed enquiry report was held illegal and unjustified. In the case of Ram Das Yadav v. Sena Nayak 45th Battalion P.A.C. Contingent Kokarajhar Assam and Ors. it has been held that the satisfaction of the Disciplinary Authority for dispensing with the disciplinary enquiry must be fair and reasonable and the reasons, therefore should be recorded in the order. 14. It has been observed by the learned Tribunal that in the written statement filed in the claim petition, it has not been explained what efforts were made by the Department to collect the evidence against the Petitioner (opposite party No. 1) justifying such order of dismissal. The only material was the report of Circle Officer, Rae Bareilly dated 27.9.2000, which simply speaks about all the service history of the Petitioner right from 1978 to 1991. The learned Tribunal has also rejected the plea of the Petitioners that no prayer was made for quashing the appellate order. In this regard, it has been observed by the learned Tribunal that the Petitioner (opposite party No. 1) has also prayed that the appellate order, if any, be also quashed. 15. In view of the facts mentioned above, we come to the conclusion that no sufficient reasons for dispensing with the disciplinary proceedings were mentioned by the Superintendent of Police. Rae Bareilly in his order dated 28.9.2000. The dismissal order also shows that no efforts were made to record the evidence of the witnesses. 15. In view of the facts mentioned above, we come to the conclusion that no sufficient reasons for dispensing with the disciplinary proceedings were mentioned by the Superintendent of Police. Rae Bareilly in his order dated 28.9.2000. The dismissal order also shows that no efforts were made to record the evidence of the witnesses. The names of those witnesses who were not ready to give evidence on account of the terror of opposite party No. 1 have also not been specifically mentioned. Only on the basis of imagination and baseless reasonings the enquiry was dispensed with. The learned Tribunal has rightly held that the dismissal order was not legally sustainable. 16. We do not find any illegality in the impugned order. This writ petition has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. 17. The writ petition is dismissed. The Petitioners shall re-instate the opposite party No. 1 within two weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced.