Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3769 (ALL)

Ram Ratan v. State of U. P.

2016-11-22

SIDDHARTHA VARMA, TARUN AGARWALA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Siddhartha Varma, J. The petitioner who was a constable was awarded a punishment of 14 days punishment drill. Since he did not undergo the punishment, he was charge sheeted. An enquiry was instituted under the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. 2. The enquiry officer submitted his report on 5.5.1993. In pursuance thereof the punishing authority had issued a show cause on 15.5.1993 to the petitioner. The petitioner was required to give a reply to the show cause issued to him on 15.5.1993. However, no reply was forthcoming and the petitioner only tried to linger the matter. He never appeared and only sent telegrams stating that he was ill. He was in fact also granted time, as he was sending telegrams informing about his illness. The petitioner was informed about the grant of time by means of a registered post. 3. The punishing authority, thereafter, upon considering the facts of the case and also after taking into account the fact that the police force was a disciplined force dismissed the petitioner from service on 30th July, 1993. A definite finding had been recorded with regard to a gross indisciplined act committed by him. 4. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General, Varanasi against the dismissal order dated 30.7.1993. The appeal was also dismissed on 15.10.1993. 5. Against both the orders, the petitioner filed a claim petition being Claim Petition No. 2014 of 1994. The Tribunal after taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case dismissed the claim petition. It was found by the tribunal that the petitioner was not fit to be a part of a disciplined police force. It was also found that despite the fact that opportunities were afforded to the petitioner to participate in the enquiry proceedings, he refused to do so deliberately. With regard to the non-supply of the evidence asked for by the petitioner, a definite finding has been recorded by the State Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow, that all relevant evidence were made available to the petitioner before the start of the enquiry itself. The petitioner was also afforded full opportunity to deny the charges and thus there was a complete compliance of the principles of nature justice. The petitioner was also afforded full opportunity to deny the charges and thus there was a complete compliance of the principles of nature justice. The State Tribunal, apart from finding that there was a full fledged opportunity afforded to the petitioner, also found that the grounds on which the dismissal order was passed were correct. 6. The counsel for the petitioner has tried to impress upon this Court that the punishment awarded was disproportionate to the act of misconduct, which according to him was not grave. 7. Upon the perusal of the record of the case, we find that the petitioner indulged in an act which would come under the category of "grave indiscipline". The police force is a disciplined force and no indiscipline can be tolerated therein. In State of Punjab Vs. Ram Singh AIR 1992 SC 2188 the Supreme Court held that a person serving in a disciplined force demands strict adherence to the rules and procedure. Similar view was again reiterated by the Supreme Court in State of U.P. and others Vs. Ashok Kumar Singh and another 1996(1) SCC 302 and in Chandra Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others 2001(2) UPLBEC 728. In the light of the aforesaid, we find that the punishment which was awarded was in consonance with the guilt. Thus, the argument of the counsel for the petitioner that the punishment imposed upon him was disproportionate is devoid of merit. 8. It may also be noted that the order of the State Service Tribunal, Lucknow, was passed on 27.10.1998 and the writ petition was filed on 29th January, 2008. It clearly shows that the petitioner was not serious in contesting the order of the State Tribunal dated 27.10.1998. The petitioner has also not explained the laches. A simple assertion that he came to know about the order of State Tribunal dated 27.10.1998 on 1.5.2007, does not seem to be very convincing. Thus the writ petition also suffers from laches, apart from the fact that it has got no merit. 9. Under such circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed.