Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2290 (ALL)

Akhtyar Ahmad v. State of U. P.

2015-08-07

RAKESH SRIVASTAVA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Rakesh Srivastava, J. A show cause notice dated 26.06.2001, issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Moradabad Range, Moradabad, requiring the petitioner to show cause as to why, for the reasons mentioned therein, he be not dismissed from service, is under challenge in the present writ petition. 2. On 04.10.1991 an advertisement was issued by the respondents inviting applications for appointment on the post of male and female Sub Inspectors in Civil Police in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner submitted his application for appointment on the post of Male Sub Inspector under 2% sports quota. The petitioner after being subjected to preliminary test, physical test, written examination and interview was declared successful and was thereby selected for training for appointment on the said post. After the petitioner completed his training successfully, by means of letter dated 07.02.1998, he was appointed on the post of Sub Inspector in Civil Police and in pursuance thereof the petitioner joined on the said post on 08.02.1998. Since then the petitioner has been discharging his duties as such. 3. Certain complaints were received by the State Government with respect to the selection under sports quota. The matter was referred for investigation to Crime Branch of CID, U.P., Lucknow. In his report, the Superintendent of Police, CB-CID, opined that as per G.O. dated 08.05.1987 the petitioner and certain other candidates who had not participated in the National Level Competition were not eligible for appointment under the "sports quota". Dismissal from service along with criminal prosecution of the petitioner besides others, for seeking appointment under the sports category, for which they were not eligible, was recommended. In pursuance of the report submitted by CB-CID an FIR was lodged at Police Station, Hazratganj on 18.05.1999 against 35 personnel of the U.P. Police Force including the petitioner. The said FIR was registered as Case Crime No. 461/99 under Sections 193/196/218/465/467/468/471/120-B IPC and section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 4. The FIR dated 18.05.1999 was assailed by the petitioner and other similarly situated candidates in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 3091 of 1999; Virendra Kumar Mishra & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors before this Court at Allahabad. In the said writ petition, on 07.06.1999 an interim order was passed by this Court whereby the arrest of the petitioner and others was stayed. Writ Petition No. 3091 of 1999; Virendra Kumar Mishra & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors before this Court at Allahabad. In the said writ petition, on 07.06.1999 an interim order was passed by this Court whereby the arrest of the petitioner and others was stayed. The relevant portion of the order dated 07.06.1999 is extracted below:- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State and perused the First Information Report. It shows that these petitioners have filed their applications claiming themselves to be qualified sportsmen, they have been cleared as such sportsmen by the department. Now after they have resumed their duties for training. It has been alleged by the department that they were not eligible sportsmen under certain category of rules. At the time of appointment what rules are to be applied, is not disclosed by the I.G. (Karmik) in the first information report. In view of this, the arrest of the petitioners in case Crime No. 451 of 1990 under Sections 193, 196, 218, 465, 467, 471, 120-B IPC & Section 13(1)(c)(d) and Section 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, P.S. Hazratganj, Lucknow, shall remain stayed till 14.8.1999. The Investigation of this case may go on in accordance with law and petitioners will cooperate with the investigation. Meanwhile the learned A.G.A. is directed to file counter affidavit clarifying the rules applicable as also para wise reply to the petition within four weeks." (emphasis supplied) 5. Subsequently, the respondent no. 3 in purported exercise of power under the U.P. Temporary Government Servant (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975 (for short 1975 Act') passed an order on 10.08.1999 terminating the services of the petitioner. The termination order dated 10.08.1999 was challenged by the petitioner in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35171 of 1999, Akhtyar Ahmad v. Deputy Inspector General of Police & Ors before this Court at Allahabad. The said writ petition was clubbed with writ petitions of other similarly situated candidates and by a common judgment dated 04.01.2001 all the writ petitions were allowed and the order of termination was quashed. Writ Petition No. 35171 of 1999, Akhtyar Ahmad v. Deputy Inspector General of Police & Ors before this Court at Allahabad. The said writ petition was clubbed with writ petitions of other similarly situated candidates and by a common judgment dated 04.01.2001 all the writ petitions were allowed and the order of termination was quashed. The relevant portion of the judgment dated 04.01.2001 to which the attention of the Court has been drawn by the learned counsel for the petitioner is extracted below:- "It has been submitted by Sri Agarwal that the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975 (in short 'the Rules') was not applicable to the present case inasmuch as the service of the petitioners was not a "temporary service" within the meaning of term as defined under Rule-2 of the Rules. The learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submitted that the petitioners were not covered under the sports quota and being temporary government servants their services were liable to be terminated under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Temporary Government Servant (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975. In my opinion the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners carry substance. Rule 2 of the Rules defines 'temporary service' as under. "In these Rules temporary service means officiating or substantive servant on a temporary post or officiating service on a permanent post under the Uttar Pradesh Government." Admittedly the petitioners were appointed against substantive vacancies in permanent posts. Accordingly they do not come within the purview of "temporary service" as defined in Rule-2 of the Rules. The impugned orders of termination are, therefore, liable to be quashed." and then "Accordingly the petitions succeeds and are allowed. The impugned orders are quashed. The respondents are, however, given liberty to take such decision as may be deem fit and proper after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners on the question as to whether they come under the category of 'Kushal Khiladi' so as to get benefit of sports quota." 6. The impugned orders are quashed. The respondents are, however, given liberty to take such decision as may be deem fit and proper after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners on the question as to whether they come under the category of 'Kushal Khiladi' so as to get benefit of sports quota." 6. After the termination order dated 10.08.1999 was set aside by this Court at Allahabad, instead of initiating appropriate proceedings under the Rules for imposing major penalty, straightaway a show cause notice dated 26.06.2001 issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Moradabad Range, Moradabad was served upon the petitioner requiring him to show cause, within the stipulated time, as to why, for the reasons mentioned therein, he be not dismissed from service. Before issuing the impugned show cause notice neither any disciplinary enquiry nor any oral enquiry was held against the petitioner. Before issuing the impugned show cause notice neither any disciplinary enquiry nor any oral enquiry was held against the petitioner. The show cause notice dated 26.06.2001, which is extracted below, is under challenge in the present writ petition:- dkj.k crkvks uksfVl mi fujh{kd uk0iq0 Jh v[kR;kj vgen tuin eqjknkckn vkius o"kZ 1991 esa lh/kh HkrhZ ls mi fujh{kd uk0iq0 ds in ds izf'k{k.k esa p;u gsrq vk;ksftr ijh{kk esa lfEefyr gksus gsrq tuin eqjknkckn ls vkosnu i= izLrqr fd;kA 'kklu }kjk le; & le; ij iz[;kfir 'kklukns'k ds vuq:i dq'ky f[kykM+h dh ifjHkk"kk ls vPNkfnr u gksrs gq, Hkh vkius vlR; lwpukvksa dks izLrqr dj vius vkosnu i= esa Lo;a dks dq'ky f[kykMh] Js.kh ds vUrxZr vkj{k.k ykHk ysus dk nkok izLrqr fd;kA lh0ch0lh0vkbZ0Mh0] y[kum }kjk izdj.k dh tkap ds mijkUr ;g ik;k x;k fd le; & le; ij tkjh fd;s x;s 'kklukns'kksa ds vuqlkj vki dq'ky f[kykMh dh Js.kh esa ugha vkrs vkSj vkius vius vU; lg;ksfx;ksa ds lkFk iqfyl foHkkx ds dfri; vf/kdkfj;ksa@deZpkfj;ksa ls feydj ,d jk; gksdj] nqjfHklfU/k djds ,d lqfu;ksftr vkijkf/kd "kM+;U= dh dwV jpukdj foHkkx dks /kks[ks esa j[krs gq;s Lo;a }kjk izLrqr dh xbZ vlR; lwpukvksa ds vk/kkj ij mDr "kM+;Ur esa 'kkfey vius vU; lkfFk;ksa ds lg;ksx@lgefr ls dq'ky f[kykM+h Js.kh ds vUrxZr vkj{k.k ykHk izkIr dj o"kZ 1998 esa mi fujh{kd uk0iq0 in ij lsok;kstu izkIr fd;kA 2- vkijkf/kd "kM+;U= }kjk foHkkx dks /kks[ks esa j[kdj izkIr lsok;kstu iw.kZr;k voS/kkfud ,oa fof/kfo:) gS lsok;kstu izkIr djrs le; HkrhZ ds fu;e dh fu;ekoyh ds izi= 5 ds vuqlkj fn;s x;s vius 'kiFk i= esa izLrj&7 o 10 esa vkius l'kiFk ;g vfHkdFku fd;k Fkk fd ;fn vkids vkosnu i= esa mfYyf[kr dksbZ ckr xyr ik;h tk;s rks vkids QkslZ@lsok ls i`Fkd dj fn;k tk; rFkk fof/kd n.M fn;k tk; ,oa vkids }kjk izLrqr rF; Hkfo"; esa dHkh Hkh ;fn xyr ik;h tk;s rks vkidks lsok ls i`Fkd dj fn;k tk;A 3- lh0ch0lh0vkbZ0Mh0 y[kum }kjk dh xbZ tkpa ls ;g izekf.kr gksrk gS fd vki dq'ky f[kykM+h dh ifjHkk"kk esa ugha vkrs gS vkSj rnuqlkj vkj{k.k ykHk ikus ds gdnkj ugha gS vkSj bl lEcU/k esa vki }kjk izLrqr fd;s x;s rF;@lwpuk;sa@nkok lh0ch0lh0vkbZ0Mh0 dh tkap ls vlR; ik;s x;s gSA 4- vr% ,rn~}kjk vkidks funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd ;g dkj.k crkvks uksfVl izkIr gksus ds 8 fnol ds vUnj vki viuk Li"Vhdj.k nsa fd vkidks of.kZr rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij D;ksa u mi fujh{kd uk0iq0 ds in ls inP;qr dj lsok ls i`Fkd dj fn;k tk;A vkidks lpsr fd;k tkrk gS fd ;fn fu/kkZfjr vof/k ds vUnj vkidk mRrj ugha izkIr gksrk gS rks ;g le>k tk;sxk fd vkidks bl lEcU/k esa dqN ugh dguk gS vkSj izdj.k esa vxzsrj dk;Zokgh fu;ekuqlkj lqfuf'pr dj nh tk;sxhA layXud vk[;kA vk0'kk0i=kad dke&ukS&318¼1½ 2001 g0@& jtuh dkUr feJ fnuakd 21-5 iqfyl miegkfujh{kd ifj{ks= Show Cause Notice Sub-Inspector Civil Police Shri Akhtyar Ahmad District Moradabad. In 1991, you applied for appearing in the Examination conducted for selection into the training for the post of Civil Police Sub-Inspector through direct recruitment from District Moradabad. Even on not being covered under the definition of skilled player as per the Government Orders issued by the Government from time to time, by presenting false information, you claimed the benefit of reservation under the category of skilled player in your application form. After the investigation of the matter by the CB-CID, Lucknow, it was found that you do not come under the category of skilled player as per the Government Orders issued from time to time and you, with your other companions, in collusion with few Officers/Employees of the Police Department entered into a pre-planned criminal conspiracy in furtherance of your common intention and by keeping the department in dark on the basis of false information provided by you and with the aid/consent of your companions involved in the aforesaid conspiracy, you got the employment on the post of Sub-Inspector Civil Police in the year 1998 by getting the benefit of reservation under the category of skilled player. 2. The Employment got by keeping the department in dark through criminal conspiracy is totally illegal and against the law. At the time of getting the employment, in para 7 and 10 of your affidavit submitted as per the proforma 5 of Rules of recruitment, you had stated on oath that if any fact mentioned in your application form be found false then you may be dismissed from the force/service and be punished as per law. And if at any time in future, facts presented by you are found false then you may be dismissed from the service. 3. It is proved by the investigation done by the CB-CID, Lucknow that you do not come in the ambit of definition of a skilled player and accordingly you are not entitled to get the benefit of reservation and the fact/information/claim furnished by you in this regard were found false in the investigation of CB-CID. 4. Therefore, you are hereby directed to explain within 8 days from receiving of this show cause notice as to why you should not be dismissed from the post of Sub-Inspector Civil Police and be removed from the same on the basis of aforementioned facts. 4. Therefore, you are hereby directed to explain within 8 days from receiving of this show cause notice as to why you should not be dismissed from the post of Sub-Inspector Civil Police and be removed from the same on the basis of aforementioned facts. You are being warned that if your explanation is not received within the stipulated time then it will be deemed that you have nothing to say in this regard and further proceeding will be done in the matter as per rule. Enclosure-Report. D.O. Letter No. Kaam-nau-318 (1) 2001 sd/- Date: 21st June (Rajni Kant Mishra) Deputy Inspector General of Police Zone (English translation by Court) 7. Despite opportunity no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents till date. More than 14 years have passed and no useful purpose would be served by keeping this petition pending. In the circumstances, with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel this writ petition is being disposed of finally. 8. Sri Amit Bose, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that before issuing the impugned show cause notice neither any disciplinary enquiry nor any oral enquiry was held against the petitioner and as such the penalty of dismissal from service, which is a major penalty under the Rules, could not be inflicted upon the petitioner by merely requiring the petitioner to show cause as to why the said penalty be not inflicted upon him. The counsel further submits that the show cause notice is absolutely vague and as such, no punishment, whatsoever, could be imposed upon the petitioner on the basis of the impugned show cause notice. 9. Per contra, Ms. Madhurima Bhargava, learned Standing Counsel has supported the impugned show cause notice. Learned counsel has further submitted that the writ petition against a show cause notice is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as such. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 11. In so far as maintainability of the writ petition against a show cause notice is concerned, it is no doubt true, that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge sheet or a show cause notice, but at the same time, there is no absolute bar in entertaining a writ petition against a charge sheet or a show cause notice. 12. In Union of India & Anr. 12. In Union of India & Anr. v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, 2006 (12) SCC 28 , the Apex Court in paragraphs 13 to 16 of the said report has held as under:- "13. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge sheet or show-cause notice. 14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ petition lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of any one. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance. 15. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show-cause notice or charge sheet. 16. No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court can quash a charge-sheet or show-cause notice if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal. However, ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in such a matter." (emphasis supplied) 13. In Siemens Ltd. v. State of Maharastra & Ors., (2006) 12 SCC 33 , the Apex Court in paragraph 9 of the said report has held as under:- "9. Although ordinarily a writ court may not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in entertaining a writ petition questioning a notice to show cause unless the same inter alia appears to have been without jurisdiction as has been held by this Court in some decisions including State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma, Special Director v. Mohd. Although ordinarily a writ court may not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in entertaining a writ petition questioning a notice to show cause unless the same inter alia appears to have been without jurisdiction as has been held by this Court in some decisions including State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma, Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, but the question herein has to be considered from a different angle viz. When a notice is issued with premeditation, a writ petition would be maintainable. In such an event, even if the court directs the statutory authority to hear the matter afresh, ordinarily such hearing would not yield any fruitful purpose. It is evident in the instant case that the respondent has clearly made up its mind. It explicitly said so both in the counter-affidavit as also in its purported show-cause notice." 14. It is, thus, settled that a writ petition against a show cause notice which is issued without jurisdiction, is maintainable. Similarly in exceptional circumstances, a show cause notice or a charge sheet can be interfered with in writ jurisdiction. It would vary from case to case. The cases where Court comes to the conclusion that the action of the respondents is per se illegal or where on the examination of the record the court comes to the conclusion that the authorities have already decided to impose the punishment prior to the issue of show cause notice, this Court can always ensure that no injury is caused to the delinquent employee in such circumstances. 15. Applying the said principles to the case in hand, it is to be seen as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, interference with the impugned show cause notice is called for or not. 16. With a view to regulate the departmental proceedings, punishment and appeals of the Police Officers of the subordinate ranks of the Uttar Pradesh Force, the State Government has framed Rules known as the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short 'Rules'). Rule 4, 5, 8, 14 and Appendix-1 to the Rules being relevant are being quoted below:- 4. Punishment.- (1) The following punishments may, for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided, be imposed upon a Police Officer, namely- (a) Major Penalties. i. Dismissal from service. ii. Removal from service. iii. Rule 4, 5, 8, 14 and Appendix-1 to the Rules being relevant are being quoted below:- 4. Punishment.- (1) The following punishments may, for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided, be imposed upon a Police Officer, namely- (a) Major Penalties. i. Dismissal from service. ii. Removal from service. iii. Reduction in rank including reduction to a lower scale or to a lower stage in a time scale. (b) Minor Penalties. i. Withholding of promotion. ii. Fine not exceeding one months' pay. iii. Withholding of Increment, including stoppage at an efficient bar iv. Censure. (2) to (4) (omitted as unnecessary). ***** 5. Procedure for award of punishment- (1) The cases in which major punishment enumerated in clause (a) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 may be awarded shall be dealt with in accordance with the procedure laid down in sub-rule (1) of Rule 14. (2) The cases in which minor punishments enumerated in Clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 may be awarded, shall be dealt with in accordance with the procedure laid down in sub-rule (2) of Rule 14. (3) (omitted as unnecessary). ***** "8. Dismissal and Removal.- (1) No Police Officer shall be dismissed or removed from service by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority. (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) Where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or (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; or (c) Where the Government is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to hold such enquiry." (3) & (4) (omitted as unnecessary). ***** "14. Procedure for conducting departmental proceedings.- (1) Subject to the provisions contained in these Rules the departmental proceedings in the cases referred to in sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 against the Police officers may be conducted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Appendix 1. ***** "14. Procedure for conducting departmental proceedings.- (1) Subject to the provisions contained in these Rules the departmental proceedings in the cases referred to in sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 against the Police officers may be conducted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Appendix 1. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) punishments in cases referred to in sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 may be imposed after informing the Police Officer in writing of the action proposed to be taken against him and of the imputations of act or omission on which it is proposed to be taken and giving him a reasonable opportunity of making such representation as he may wish to make against the proposal. (3) (omitted as unnecessary). ***** Appendix-I Procedure Relating To The Conduct Of Departmental Proceedings Against Police Officer [See Rule 14 (1)] Upon institution of a formal enquiry such Police Officer against whom the inquiry has been instituted shall be informed in writing of the grounds on which was proposed to take action and shall be afforded an adequate opportunity of defending himself. The grounds on which it is proposed to take action shall be used I the form of a definite charge or charges as in Form 1 appended to these Rules which shall be communicated to the charged Police officer and which shall be so clear and precise as to give sufficient indication to the charged Police officer, of the facts and circumstances against him. He shall be required, within a reasonable time, to put in, in a written statement of his defence and to state, whether he desires to be heard in person. If he so desires, or if the Inquiry Officer so directs an oral enquiry shall be held in respect of such of the allegation as are not admitted. At that enquiry such oral evidence will be recorded as the Inquiry Officer considers necessary. The charge Police Officer shall be entitled to cross-examine the witnesses to give evidence in person and to have such witnesses called as he may wish: Provided that the Inquiry Officer may for sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing refuse to call a witness. The proceedings shall contain a sufficient record of the evidence and statement of the finding and the ground thereof. The proceedings shall contain a sufficient record of the evidence and statement of the finding and the ground thereof. The Inquiry Officer may also separately from these proceedings make his own recommendation regarding the punishment to be imposed on the charged Police Officer." 17. A perusal of the Rules would show that both minor and major penalties may be imposed upon a Police Officer. Rule 4 of the Rules specifies the major and minor penalties which can be imposed upon a Police Officer covered by the Rules for 'good and sufficient reasons'. As per Rule 5 of the Rules in cases where major punishment may be awarded, the procedure laid down in sub-rule (1) of Rule 14 has to be adhered to, whereas in cases where minor punishment may be awarded, the procedure laid down in sub-rule (2) of Rule 14 has to be adhered to. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 14 of the Rules in cases where major punishment may be awarded, the departmental proceedings have to be conducted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Appendix-1, whereas as per sub-rule (ii) of Rule 14 of the Rules minor punishment may be imposed after informing the Police Officer in writing of the action proposed to be taken against him and of the imputations of act or omission on which it is proposed to be taken and giving him a reasonable opportunity of making such representation as he may wish to make against the proposal. 18. The procedure for imposing minor penalties is, thus, less elaborate than the procedure for imposing major penalties. In case of minor penalties, neither a formal charge sheet is required to be issued nor a regular Inquiry Officer is to be appointed. After calling for the delinquent's explanation and after considering the same, if any, and the relevant records, it is open to the Appointing Authority to pass appropriate orders. In case a penalty is to be imposed, after recording reasons, action can be taken straightway, imposing upon the delinquent Police Officer any of the minor penalties. After calling for the delinquent's explanation and after considering the same, if any, and the relevant records, it is open to the Appointing Authority to pass appropriate orders. In case a penalty is to be imposed, after recording reasons, action can be taken straightway, imposing upon the delinquent Police Officer any of the minor penalties. Whereas, in cases where major penalty may be awarded, as per Appendix-I to the Rules, the Appointing Authority is obliged to issue a charge sheet containing definite charges to the charged Police Officer requiring him to put in his written statement of defence within a reasonable time mentioned in the said charge sheet and to also state as to whether he desired to be heard in person. If the delinquent employee desires or the Inquiry Officer directs an oral inquiry has to be held in respect of such of the allegations which are not admitted strictly as per the procedure laid down in the Appendix. 19. It is no more res integra that the disciplinary proceedings against a charged delinquent employee under the statutory Rules are quasi-judicial in nature. It follows that the initiation of disciplinary proceedings and conclusion thereof cannot be an ipse dixit either of the Inquiry Officer or the authority. Moreover, it is a settled principle of law that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all. 20. In Commissioner of Income Tax v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala & Ors, (2002) 1 SCC 633 , a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in paragraph no. 27 of the said report has held as follows: "It is normal rule of construction that when a statute vests certain power in an authority to be exercised in a particular manner then the said authority has to exercise it only in the manner provided in the statute itself." 21. In Vijay Singh v. State of U.P., (2012) 5 SCC 242 , the Apex Court has held that while imposing penalty, the disciplinary authority is bound to give strict adherence to statutory rules. Paragraph 15 of the said report is being quoted below: - "15. Imposing the punishment for a proved delinquency is regulated and controlled by the statutory rules. In Vijay Singh v. State of U.P., (2012) 5 SCC 242 , the Apex Court has held that while imposing penalty, the disciplinary authority is bound to give strict adherence to statutory rules. Paragraph 15 of the said report is being quoted below: - "15. Imposing the punishment for a proved delinquency is regulated and controlled by the statutory rules. Therefore, while performing the quasi-judicial functions, the authority is not permitted to ignore the statutory rules under which punishment is to be imposed. The disciplinary authority is bound to give strict adherence to the said rules. Thus, the order of punishment being outside the purview of the statutory rules is a nullity and cannot be enforced against the appellant." 22. Under the Rules, dismissal from service is a major penalty which could be inflicted upon a Police Officer covered by the Rules only after disciplinary proceedings are held against him strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down in Appendix-I to the Rules. Admittedly, neither any disciplinary proceedings nor any oral enquiry has been held against the petitioner and straightaway the impugned show cause notice requiring the petitioner to show cause as to why he be not dismissed from service has been issued to the petitioner. In the circumstances, the penalty of dismissal from service cannot be inflicted upon the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned show cause notice. 23. That apart, in the writ petition, the petitioner has categorically averred that as per the brochure published by the Government Press, Allahabad and made available to all candidates the petitioner was fully qualified for appointment on the post in question. Paragraphs 3 to 7 of the writ petition being relevant are being reproduced below:- "03. That the eligible incumbents were required to fill in form for admission for training, were-after they were to be appointed as Sub Inspector of Police. The rule as made available to all the candidates by the respondents are contained in their Brochure published by the Government Press, Allahabad and supplied by the Police Headquarters in the year 19991 and for ready reference photo extract copy of the said book is being annexed hereto as Annexure No. 1. 04. That petitioner being qualified and eligible, applied in pursuance to the said advertisement of 1991. 05. 04. That petitioner being qualified and eligible, applied in pursuance to the said advertisement of 1991. 05. That it is also worthy to mention here that separate quota of 2% of vacancies was also provided in the said Brochure for sportsman. Para 4 (e) of the said Brochure clearly provides that for sportsmen concession those who are covered by the Government order dated 11.2.1975 shall be eligible, for ready reference a true copy of the said Govt. Order dated 11.2.1975 as referred to in para 4 (a) of the said Brochure is being annexed hereto as Annexure No. 2. 06. That the petitioner submitted his application along with all the relevant certificates which were in regard to participation of the petitioner in the Inter Universities level with regard to athletic Games in the various sessions 1987-88 and 1988-89, 1990-91 and coupled with those certificates, the petitioner had also submitted his certificate in regard to State level. The true copies of the document showing the participation of petitioner in Sports activities are annexed hereto as Annexure No. 3. 07. That as the petitioner had filled up his form and was fully eligible for being selected and appointed as Sub Inspector of Police in Civil, the petitioner received communication dated 6.6.92 sent by Senior Superintendent of Police, Bareilly and by means of the same, it was directed that the petitioner should appear for preliminary/objective examination on 29.6.92." 24. More than 25 years have passed but no counter affidavit has been filed. The averments made in the writ petition are un-controverted. 25. It is imperative to recall that in the FIR dated 18.05.2009 the Rules which were applicable at the time of appointment of the petitioner were not disclosed and that precisely was the reason, this Court vide order dated 07.06.199 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 3091 of 1999 stayed the arrest of the petitioner and others in case crime no. 451 of 1990. The State was specifically directed to disclose in the counter affidavit, the Rules which were applicable at the time of appointment of the petitioner. In Case Crime No. 461/99, a final report was submitted by the police exonerating all the accused personnel except Sri Prem Chandra Singh, Deputy Inspector General of Police (Karmik). Consequently Writ Petition No. 3091 of 1999 and other connected petitions were dismissed as in-fructuous. In Case Crime No. 461/99, a final report was submitted by the police exonerating all the accused personnel except Sri Prem Chandra Singh, Deputy Inspector General of Police (Karmik). Consequently Writ Petition No. 3091 of 1999 and other connected petitions were dismissed as in-fructuous. In so far as Sri Prem Chandra Singh is concerned, during the course of trial, he unfortunately died and, as such, by means of an order dated 11.06.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate-II, Lucknow the proceedings of the aforesaid case i.e. Case No. 6202 of 2007; State v. Prem Chandra Singh, were consigned to record as having abated. 26. Though in the show cause notice, it has been vaguely alleged that the petitioner did not come under the category of "skilled player" as per the Government Orders issued from time to time, however, the Rules/Government orders which were allegedly applicable at the time when the petitioner was appointed on the post in question, have not been disclosed. The impugned show cause notice being absolutely vague, no punishment, whether major or minor, could be imposed upon the petitioner on the basis of the said show cause notice. 27. At the time of admission of the present writ petition, after hearing the counsel for the parties, an interim order was passed by this Court staying the operation and implementation of the impugned show cause notice dated 26.06.2001. The relevant portion of the order dated 16.07.2001 is being quoted below:- "The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in writ petition No. 25161 of 1999 and other connected matters, this Court has already held that the appointment of the petitioners of that writ petition was in substantive capacity and they do not come within the purview of 'temporary service' as defined in Rule 2 of the Rules. So far as benefit of sports quota accorded to the petitioner, liberty was given to the opposite parties to pass appropriate orders after affording opportunity to the petitioners. In pursuance thereof, it appears that a show cause notice dated 26.06.2001 has been issued to the petitioner as contained in Annexure-15 which, after narrating the charges leveled against the petition, required the petitioner to submit reply within 8 days, showing cause as to why he should not be removed from service. In pursuance thereof, it appears that a show cause notice dated 26.06.2001 has been issued to the petitioner as contained in Annexure-15 which, after narrating the charges leveled against the petition, required the petitioner to submit reply within 8 days, showing cause as to why he should not be removed from service. Prima facie, it appears that the notice has been issued for awarding major punishment which punishment cannot be awarded by simply issuing a show cause notice and, therefore, I stay the operation and implementation of the notice dated 26.06.2001 till further orders of the Court. It is, however, made clear that the opposite parties are at liberty to hold the enquiry in accordance with law and pass fresh orders." 28. In the case at hand twice the respondents were granted opportunity to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. Firstly, while setting aside the termination order dated 10.08.1999 a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 04.01.2001 passed in Writ Petition No. 35171 of 1999, granted opportunity to the respondents to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law but instead of taking recourse to the procedure provided under the Rules for inflicting major penalty, the impugned show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. Secondly, on 16.07.2001, while staying the operation of the impugned show cause notice, opportunity was granted to the respondents to hold an inquiry against the petitioner in accordance with law and to pass fresh orders. Admittedly, till date no action has been initiated by the respondents against the petitioner as per Rules. There is no explanation, what to say a satisfactory explanation for the inaction on the part of the respondent to initiate appropriate proceedings against the applicant under the Rules. The charges relate to the year 1998. More than 17 years have passed. In the circumstances, it would be unfair to permit the respondent to proceed afresh against the petitioner at this distance of time. 29. For the reasons, stated above, the impugned show cause notice cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 30. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The show cause notice dated 26.06.2001 is quashed. 31. No orders as to costs.