Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 826 (ALL)

Ram Bhool Singh v. State of U. P.

2020-04-30

SARAL SRIVASTAVA

body2020
JUDGMENT : Saral Srivastava, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has challenged the order dated 21.10.2004 passed by respondent No. 4-Senior Superintendent of Police, District Moradabad dismissing the petitioner from service, the order dated 26.8.2005 passed by respondent No. 3-Deputy Inspector General of Police, Moradabad Region, District Moradabad rejecting the appeal of the petitioner and the order dated 18.2.2006 passed by the respondent No. 2-Inspector General of Police, Bareilly Zone, District Bareilly rejecting the revision of the petitioner. 3. Brief facts give rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner was working as Constable. It appears that there was some matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and his wife- Smt. Sushila Devi (respondent No. 6). A criminal case under Sections 494, 323, 308, 506 and 498 IPC as well as Section 125 Cr.P.C. was instituted against the petitioner on the complaint of respondent No. 6. The respondent No. 6 also submitted a complaint to the authorities alleging therein that during the sustenance of her marriage, the petitioner has solemnized another marriage with one Shyam Beeri d/o Leela Singh, r/o Village Asawar, P.S. Gulawati, Pargana Agauta, Tehsil and District Bulandshahr. 4. The respondent No. 6 also submitted a complaint to the authorities alleging therein that during the sustenance of her marriage, the petitioner has solemnized another marriage with one Shyam Beeri d/o Leela Singh, r/o Village Asawar, P.S. Gulawati, Pargana Agauta, Tehsil and District Bulandshahr. 4. On the complaint of respondent No. 6, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on the following charge:- ^^dkfuŒ }kjk vius Li"Vhdj.k fd;k gS] fd mldh 'kknh o"kZ 1979 esa Jhefr lq'khyk nsoh ls gq;h FkhA o"kZ 1994 ls izkFkhZ ls vyx jgus yxhA ifjokj U;k;ky; esa Hkj.k&iks"k.k dk nkok dj fn;k Fkk] ftl ij mls :Œ750@& izfr ekg [kpkZ nsuk cka/k fn;k x;k] tks izkFkhZ cjkcj nsrk pyk vk jgk gSA blls Li"V gS] fd Jherh lq'khyk nsoh dkfuŒ 65 lŒiqŒ jkeHkwy dh iRuh gSA blh vk/kkj ij mlds }kjk viuh iRuh ds Hkj.k&iks"k.k gsrq :Œ750@& izfrekg fn;k x;k gSA dkfuŒ dk mldh iRuh lq'khyk nsoh ls U;kf;d] fof/kor ifr&iRuh lEca/k foPNsn ugha gqvk gSA dkfuŒ dks bl dFku esa cy ugha gS] fd mlh iRuh Jhefr lq'khyk nsoh us tkucw>dj mldks uqdlku igqWpkus rFkk mlds ifjokj dks cnuke djus ds mnns'; ls mlds }kjk >wBk izkFkZuk&i= fn;k x;k gS] fd Jhefr ';keohjh ls 'kknh dj yh gS] esjs HkkbZ vkseiky us 'kknh ugha dh gSA foHkkxh; fopkj.k ls iw.kZr% fl) gksrk gS fd dkfuŒ }kjk viuh iRuh Jhefr lq'khyk nsoh ds thfor jgrs gq;s rFkk fcuk lEca/k&foPNsn fd;s gq, ,d vU; L=h ls 'kknh dh gSAa dkfuŒ }kjk vius Li"Vhdj.k ls Lao; Lohdkj fd;k x;k gS fd dkfu lŒiqŒ jkeHkwy }kjk viuh iRuh dk lEca/k fcuk foPNsn fd;s gq,s ,d vU; L=h ';keohjh ls nwljh 'kknh dh gSA dkfuŒ dk ;g d`R; fuUnuh; gSA dkfuŒ dk Li"Vhdj.k larks"ktud ugha gSA vr% dkfuŒ 65 lŒiqŒ jkeHkwy dks mDr d`R; ds fy;s dkfuŒ ds in dh ls lsok ls ^^fMlfel^^ fd;s tkus dk vkns'k ikfjr fd;k tkrk gSA la[;k % ihŒ,QŒ&14@2003 fnuakd % vDVwŒ 21] 2004 gŒ viBuh; 21@10@04 ofj"B iqfyl v/kh{kd eqjknkckn^^ 5. The petitioner thereafter submitted reply denying the charges levelled against him. In reply, the petitioner has stated that Shyam Beeri with whom the petitioner is alleged to have been married is legally wedded wife of his brother Ompal. The petitioner denied the fact that he has married with Shyam Beeri. The petitioner thereafter submitted reply denying the charges levelled against him. In reply, the petitioner has stated that Shyam Beeri with whom the petitioner is alleged to have been married is legally wedded wife of his brother Ompal. The petitioner denied the fact that he has married with Shyam Beeri. The petitioner alongwith reply submitted a list of witnesses namely (i) Hari Ram s/o Prabhu Dayal (ii) Smt. Ramwati w/o Hari Ram (iii) Sri Mahipal s/o Ram Nivas. 6. The Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry and found the charges against the petitioner proved and proposed punishment of dismissal. The Inquiry Officer submitted the inquiry report dated 5.6.2004 to the disciplinary authority-respondent No. 4 who, thereafter, issued a show cause notice on 15.6.2004 calling upon the petitioner to submit objection against the inquiry report and proposed punishment. 7. The petitioner in response to the show cause notice dated 15.6.2004 filed a detailed reply, copy of which is annexure No. 5 to the writ petition, raising following objections:- Firstly, the Inquiry Officer did not consider the documentary evidence namely the marriage card of his brother, family (kutumb) register, certificate of Gram Pradhan Meena, certificate issued by Smt. Brijesh Devi, Pradhan and Ram Kishun, Up Pradhan alongwith other members of gram panchayat Aswar of District Bulandshahr. Secondly, the petitioner has given name of three witnesses namely (i) Hari Ram s/o Prabhu Dayal (ii) Smt. Ramwati w/o Hari Ram (iii) Sri Mahipal s/o Ram Nivas as defence witnesses, but the Inquiry Officer recorded only the statement of Mahipal and has neither summoned Hari Ram and Smt. Ramwati for evidence nor recorded their statement. Thus, the petitioner was denied opportunity of hearing. It was also stated that the Inquiry Officer directed the petitioner to summon the defence witnesses on his own expenses which is contrary to rules. Thirdly, in the chargesheet, the name of Smt. Sushila Devi, Constable 780 Satyapal Singh, Sri Sudhir Kumar Singh, Circle Officer Line, Moradabad were shown as prosecution witnesses whereas during the inquiry proceedings the statement of other witnesses have been recorded of which the petitioner was not given any information nor the petitioner was supplied copy of the statement of those witnesses, due to which the petitioner could not cross-examine those witnesses. Therefore, there is violation of principles of natural justice. 8. Besides the aforesaid objections, the petitioner raised other objection and has also relied upon the several judgments. Therefore, there is violation of principles of natural justice. 8. Besides the aforesaid objections, the petitioner raised other objection and has also relied upon the several judgments. 9. The disciplinary authority after receiving objection of the petitioner passed an order dated 21.10.2004 imposing punishment of dismissal on the ground that the petitioner has failed to comply with order of the court in respect of payment of maintenance of Rs. 750/- per month to his wife Smt. Sushila Devi. The respondent No. 3 also held that the petitioner during the sustenance of his first marriage has solemnized another marriage with one Shyam Beeri, and thus, the conduct of the petitioner is unbecoming of a Government servant and the explanation of the petitioner was also not satisfactory. 10. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred appeal before the respondent No. 3, which was dismissed by the order dated 26.8.2005. The petitioner thereafter preferred revision before the respondent No. 2 who also by the order dated 18.2.2006 dismissed the same. 11. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents contending inter-alia that the charge against the petitioner were of serious in nature and after following the due procedure, the inquiry was conducted and the charges were found proved against the petitioner. Consequently, the punishment of dismissal was imposed. 12. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the inquiry report was not sustainable and is perverse inasmuch as the documentary evidence filed by the petitioner in support of his case was not considered by the Inquiry Officer while holding the charge against the petitioner proved. He further submits that the Inquiry Officer ought to have summoned all the defence witnesses mentioned in the reply of the petitioner but he did not summon the witnesses and asked the petitioner to summon the defence witnesses on his own expenses which is contrary to rules and therefore, there is violation of principles of natural justice. He further submits that in the chargesheet only three prosecution witnesses have named whereas the statement of some other witnesses whose name were not told to the petitioner nor the petitioner was given the copy of the statement of those witnesses to allow the petitioner to cross-examine them. He further submits that in the chargesheet only three prosecution witnesses have named whereas the statement of some other witnesses whose name were not told to the petitioner nor the petitioner was given the copy of the statement of those witnesses to allow the petitioner to cross-examine them. He submits that the aforesaid objections have been raised by the petitioner in response to the show cause notice dated 15.6.2004 issued by the respondent No. 4, but the respondent No. 4 while passing the order of punishment order dated 21.10.2004 has failed to consider the objection of the petitioner and thus, the order of the disciplinary authority is illegal and non speaking and without application of mind, and consequently, the same is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, the order passed by the Appellate Authority-respondent No. 3 as well as passed by the Revision Authority-respondent No. 2 affirming the order of punishment is also not sustainable. 13. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel contends that the charge against the petitioner is proved. He submits that the Inquiry Officer has conducted inquiry as per law and the disciplinary authority found no substance in the objection of the petitioner to the show cause notice, and accordingly, has rightly passed the order of dismissal against the petitioner. He further submits that the perusal of the order of the disciplinary authority clearly reveals that it has given due consideration to the objection of the petitioner. Thus, he submits that the order of the disciplinary authority is based on the material on record and thus, does not call for any interference by this Court. 14. I have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 15. The petitioner has been issued chargesheet on the ground that during the pendency of sustenance of his marriage with Smt. Sushila Devi-respondent No. 6, he has solemnized his marriage with Shyam Beeri-respondent No. 7. The Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry and found the charge proved against the petitioner. Against the show cause notice dated 15.6.2004 issued by the respondent No. 4 calling upon the petitioner to submit objection, the petitioner submitted detailed objections of which main contents have been delineated above. 16. A perusal of the order of the respondent No. 4 dated 21.10.2004 shows that it has not given any consideration to the specific objections raised by the petitioner in response to the show cause notice dated 15.6.2004. 16. A perusal of the order of the respondent No. 4 dated 21.10.2004 shows that it has not given any consideration to the specific objections raised by the petitioner in response to the show cause notice dated 15.6.2004. Thus, in view of aforesaid fact, the order of the respondent No. 4 is non speaking and is without considering the objection of the petitioner. As the order of the respondent No. 4 is non speaking and without application of mind, the same cannot be sustained in law. 17. Accordingly, the order dated 26.8.2005 passed by respondent No. 3-Deputy Inspector General of Police, Moradabad Region, District Moradabad rejecting the appeal of the petitioner and the order dated 18.2.2006 passed by the respondent No. 2-Inspector General of Police, Bareilly Zone, District Bareilly rejecting the revision as well as the order of the disciplinary authority are not sustainable for the reason that the Appellate Authority as well as Revision Authority has also not given consideration to the objection of the petitioner. 18. Thus, for the reasons given above, the orders impugned are not sustainable in law and accordingly, set aside with liberty to the respondent No. 4-Deputy Superintendent of Police Sambhal, District Moradabad to pass fresh order within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 19. The writ petition is allowed subject to observation above with no order as to costs.