Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 318 (ALL)

MAHENDRA YADAV v. STATE OF U. P.

2014-01-28

RAJES KUMAR

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rajes Kumar, J.—Heard Sri Shrawan Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rama Nand Pandey, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 31.12.2013 passed by the respondent No. 2, by which the services of the petitioner has been dispensed with. 3. It appears that in pursuance of the selection made in the year 1995, the petitioner was under going training. It also appears that during the course of training, the petitioner has to appear in quarterly examination. The petitioner appeared in the examination on 1.2.1995. It was found that the petitioner instead of writing the answer sheet himself, got it written by someone else. In respect of the aforesaid charges, the petitioner has been issued show-cause notice dated 17.4.1995 alleging that the petitioner instead of writing the answer sheet himself, got it written by one Sri Surendra Kumar, which amounts to misconduct. It is further stated that he was found failed in all subjects. In the said show-cause notice, the petitioner has been asked to file the reply. The petitioner filed the reply on 22.4.1995. Another show-cause notice has been issued to the petitioner on 26.4.1995. It appears that instead of passing the order under Regulation 541 (2) of the U.P. Police Regulations (hereinafter referred to as “Regulation”), the respondent has terminated the services of the petitioner under U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rule, 1975”) after giving a month’s notice vide order dated 2.5.1995. The said order was challenged by the petitioner by way of Writ Petition No. 22347 of 1995. This Court vide order dated 5.3.213 has allowed the writ petition and set aside the order dated 2.6.1995 on the ground that Rule, 1975 does not apply to the police personnel and the provision of Police Act, 1861 and the Police Regulations will apply. However, learned Single Judge has observed; “needless to say that this Court has not expressed its view on the merit of the case. The appropriate authority shall take the decision independently in accordance with law.” Now the impugned order has been passed under Regular 541 (2) of Regulation and dispensed with the services of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is wholly illegal. The appropriate authority shall take the decision independently in accordance with law.” Now the impugned order has been passed under Regular 541 (2) of Regulation and dispensed with the services of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is wholly illegal. He submitted that after the order dated 2.6.1995, being quashed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner has been reinstated in service on 3.8.2013 and, therefore, for the termination of the service, the respondents should have issued fresh show-cause notice under Regulation 541 (2) and without giving any such notice, the impugned order is illegal. 5. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the petitioner had been issued show-cause notice wherein the charges against the petitioner were mentioned. The petitioner filed the reply to the show-cause notice. Instead of adjudicating the allegations made in the show-cause notice and the reply given by the petitioner, the respondent No. 2 has dispensed with the services of the petitioner vide order dated 2.5.1995 under Rule, 1975. The proceeding, which was initiated by issuing show-cause notice has not been culminated by any order and now by the impugned order the said proceeding has been culminated. Therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that a fresh notice should be issued under the Regulation, is not justified. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. Police Regulation 541 reads as follows: “(1) A recruit will be on probation from the date he begins to officiate in a clear vacancy. The period of probation will be two years except in the following cases: (a) those recruited directly in the Criminal Investigation Department or District Intelligence Staff will be on probation for three years, and (b) those transferred to the Mounted police will be governed by the directions in paragraph 84 of the Police Regulation. If at the end of the period of probation conduct and work have been satisfactory and the recruit has been approved by the Deputy Inspector General of Police for service in the force, the Superintendent of Police will confirm him in his appointment. (2) In any case in which either during or at the end of the period of probation, the Superintendent of Police is of opinion that a recruit is unlikely to make a good police officer he may dispense with his service. (2) In any case in which either during or at the end of the period of probation, the Superintendent of Police is of opinion that a recruit is unlikely to make a good police officer he may dispense with his service. Before, however, this is done the recruit must be supplied with specific complaints and grounds on which it is proposed to discharge him and then he should be called upon the show-cause as to why he should not be discharged. The recruit must furnish his representation in writing and it will be duly considered by the Superintendent of Police before passing the orders of discharge.” 7. The recruit must furnish his representation in writing and it will be duly considered by the Superintendent of Police before passing the orders of discharge.” 7. The petitioner has been given show-cause notice dated 17.4.1995, annexure-2 to the writ petition, which reads as follows: ^^fnukad 1-2-95 dks vki rFkk fjdwV dkUl0 psLV ua0 2 lqjsUnz dqekj ikl&ikl cSBdj izFke lewg dh vkUrfjd fo"k;ksa dh =Sekfld ijh{kk ns jgs Fks rks vki }kjk viuh mRrj iqfLrdk ij Lo;a iz'uksa ds mRrj u fy[kdj fjdwV dkUl0 lqjsUnz dqekj dks dkih nsdj mlls fy[kk;s x;s idM+s tkus ij vkius Lohdkj fd;k fd vkidks fgUnh fy[kuk ugh vkrk gS vr% vkius vius mRrj nwljs fjdwV dkUl0 ls fy[kk;s Vªsfuax lsUVj ij Hkh tgkW u;s fjdwVksa dks vuq'kklu vkSj lpfj= gksus dh Vªsfuax nh tkrh gS ogkW ,slh èkks[kk /kM+h djuk vkSj vius gh vf/kdkfj;ksa dh vkW[kksa esa /kwy >ksdus dk iz;kl djuk ?kksj vuq'kklughurk gS blds vfrfjDr vkidh mRrj iqfLrdk ns[kus ls ;g Hkh Li"V gS fd vkius izf'k{k.k esa dksbZ :fp ugh yh gS rFkk lHkh fo"k;ksa esa vki vuqRrh.kZ gq, gSA vr% vki mDr lEcU/k esa viuk Li"Vhdj.k 3 fnol ds vUnj izsf"kr djsa ;fn vkidk Li"Vhdj.k fu/kkZfjr le; ds vUnj ugh izkIr gksxk rks ;g le>k tk;sxk fd vkidks bl lEcU/k esa dqN ugh dguk gS vkSj vkids fo:) vfxze vkns'k ikfjr dj fn;s tk;sxs la[;k t&49@95 fnukad viSzy 17] 1995 vLi"V lsukuk;d 12oha okfguh ih0,0lh0 Qrsgiqj^^ The petitioner has filed the reply to the aforesaid show-cause notice, annexure-3 to the writ petition, which reads as follows: egksn;] Jheku th }kjk vius i= la0 th&49@95 fnukad 17-4-1995 }kjk izkFkhZ ls fnukad &95 dk izFke lewg dh =Sekfld ijh{kk nsrs le; fjdzwV dkUl lqjsUnz dqekj dks dkih nsdj mlesa fy[kok;s tkus vkfn ds lEcU/k esa &xs vkjksiksa ds izfr ekaxs x;s Li"Vhdj.k ds fo"k; esa lfou; fuosnu gS fd ,0 fn;s =Sekfld ijh{kk nsrs le; izkFkhZ dk lj vpkud tksjks ls nnZ djrs gq, pdjkrs Fkk rFkk blh pdxzgV dh gkyr esa mldh dkih mlds gkFk ls NwV dj fxj iM+h FkhA yxHkx vk/ks ?kaVs rd izkFkhZ dks dqN gks'kksa gokl ugh jgkA tc mls gks'k vk;k rks mlus viuh dkih mDr lqjsUnz dqekj ds cxy esa j[kh gqbZ ik;kA ftls izkFkhZ }kjk mBkrs le; lgk;d }kjk ns[k fy;s tkus ij mUgsa izkFkhZ ds izfr Hkze mRiUu gks x;k fd mlus viuh dkih esa mDr dkUl0 ls fy[kok;k gS tcfd izkFkhZ dks drbZ ugh ekewy dh mldh dkih ij mDr dkUl0 us fdl izdkj fy[kk x;k gSA Jheku th ;g dguk xyr gS fd izkFkhZ us ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd mls fgUnh fy[kuk ugh vkrh gS vr% mlus vius mRrj nwljs fjdzwV ls fy[kok;s gSA izkFkhZ ls ml le; ;k ckn esa fdlh vf/kdkjh }kjk u rks ,slk dqN iwNk x;kA u dksbZ c;ku fd;s x;sA ;g dsoy la-&ek= gSA Jheku~ th izkFkhZ }kjk mDr =Sekfld ijh{kk esa u rks dksbZ vuq'kklu dh xbZ vkSj u gh dksbZ /kks[kk /kM+h dh xbZA vkSj u gh vius vfèkdkfj;ksa dh vka[kksa esa /kwy >ksdus dk iz;kl fd;k x;kA ;g dsoy vf/kdkfj;ksa dk gSA ijh{kk nsrs le; izkFkhZ dk lj tksjksa ls nnZ djus o pdjk dj ewfNZr n'kk esa gks tkus ds dkj.k og n'kk dk mRrj iwjk dj ikus o lgh fy[k ikus esa vleFkZ jgk gSA izkFkhZ Jheku th dks ;g vk'oLr djuk pkgsxk fd mlds }kjk mDr frfFk dks fjdzwV dkUlVsfcy dh lEiUu gqbZ ijh{kk esa vius gks'kksa gokl esa tku cw>dj dksbZ vuq'kklughurk ugh dh xbZA ;g egt bfrQkd Fkk fd mlds ewfPNZr gks tkus dh n'kk esa mlds gkFk ls mldh dkih fxjdj iM+ksl esa cSBs mDr lqjsUnz dqekj ds fudV igqWp tkus ij /kksds esa mlus izkFkhZ dh dkih dks viuh dkih le>dj fy[k Mkyk Fkk ftls mlus fy[krs le; ugh ns[kkA Li"Vhdj.k Jheku th dh lsok esa izLrqr gSA izkFkhZ egsUnz ;kno fjdzwV dk0 osLV ua0 13 12 okfguh ih-,l-lh- QrsgiqjA^^ 8. It appears that in pursuance of the show-cause notice, no order has been passed by the respondent No. 2. It also appears that the respondent No. 2 found it convenient to dispense with services of the petitioner under Rule, 1975 by order dated 2.5.1995, which was found illegal and without jurisdiction and accordingly, the same has been quashed by this Court vide order dated 5.3.2013. 9. The proceeding initiated by issuing the show-cause notice, remained pending and no order has been passed on the consideration of show-cause notice and reply on merit. On the basis of the show-cause notice and the reply filed by the petitioner, now by the impugned order, the service of the petitioner has been dispensed with under Regulation 541 (2). 10. On the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that no fresh show-cause notice was required. The impugned order has been passed after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In the impugned order, the charges against the petitioner and the reply filed by the petitioner, have been considered. The petitioner has tried to explain that why the answer sheet was found on the table of other examinee, namely, Surendra Kumar. The said explanation has not been accepted and has rightly so. Even it is assumed that the petitioner had a heacache and answer sheet has fallen down from his hand but it is not explained that how the answer sheet has been reached on the table of other examinee, namely, Surendra Kumar. Secondly, in the show-cause notice, it is clearly stated that the petitioner has failed in all the subjects. This fact has not been disputed in the reply by the petitioner to the show-cause notice. Once the petitioner was failed in all the subjects he could not be allowed to continue in service. The conduct of the petitioner was such that he could not be said to be suitable to continue in police service. Police force is a disciplined force. The conduct of the police personnel should be impeccable, full of integrity and disciplined. The person who does not possess such conduct cannot be allowed to continue in service. 11. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order terminating the services of the petitioner cannot be said to be illegal or unjustified. The impugned order has been passed after following the proper procedure contemplated in Regulation 541 (2) referred herein above. The person who does not possess such conduct cannot be allowed to continue in service. 11. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order terminating the services of the petitioner cannot be said to be illegal or unjustified. The impugned order has been passed after following the proper procedure contemplated in Regulation 541 (2) referred herein above. 12. On the facts and circumstances, the Court declines to exercise the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 13. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly dismissed.