High Court
Case Details
Reserved on 15.03.2023 Delivered on 06.04.2023 Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 37508 of 2012 Petitioner :- Ramapati Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Awadh Narain Rai,Vijay Gautam Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard Shri Awadh Narain Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 2. Present petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:- "A) Issue a writ, nature of Certiorari and quash the orders dated 02.05.2011, 22.03.2012 and order dated 09.06.2012 (Annexure Nos. 8, 10 and 11 respectively. B) Issue Writ in Nature of Mandamus and directing to respondents to allow to petitioner for work as Constable and pay salary month to month from due in interest of justice accordance with law.” 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Constable in (U.P.P.) and thereafter his services were regularized on permanent basis. On 16.12.2009, the petitioner along with Constables Jagdish Kumar, Constable Jai Mangal and Sub Inspector Asharfulan Siddiqui was assigned the duty of producing one prisoner namely, Ateeq Ahmad before learned Court of District Kanpur from District Jail Siddharthnagar. 4. Thereafter on 22.12.2009, Special Task Force (S.T.F.)
Facts
Lucknow lodged First Information Report against 09 persons 1 of 5 including the petitioner, Constables Jagdish Kumar, Constable Jai Mangal as well as Sub Inspector Asharfulan Siddiqui registered as Case Crime No. 732 of 2009 under Sections 417, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 202, 120 B I.P.C. read with 7/13 Anti Corruption Act at Police Station-G.R.P., Charbagh, Lucknow on the ground that in collusion with the police authorities, the prisoner Ateeq Ahmad was illegally living in an air-conditioned Guest House at G.R.P. Charbagh Station, Lucknow with fake Identity in illegal manner. 5. Subsequently, on 22.12.2009, the Superintendent of Police, Siddarthnagar suspended the services of petitioner from the post of Constable without holding any inquiry under the provisions of Rules 17(1) a of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991.
Legal Reasoning
15. It is well settled while judicially reviewing any punishment order passed in disciplinary proceedings, the scope of interference of this Court is very limited and is confined to finding out the procedural flaws, if any. 16. For the reasons mentioned as aforesaid, I do not find any good ground to interfere in the impugned orders dated 02.05.2011, 22.03.2012 and 09.06.2012 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority as well as Revisional Authority respectively.
Arguments
6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on 03.07.2010, the Circle Officer, District Siddarthnagar namely, Ram Dayal Rai submitted preliminary enquiry report against the petitioner without considering the entire facts. Thereafter, on 22.07.2010, the Presiding Officer issued Departmental charge sheet to the petitioner under the provisions of Rule 14(1) of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 seeking submission of reply. On 06.08.2010, the petitioner submitted his reply in shape of denial of all charges levelled in the Departmental charge sheet. 7. On 14.02.2011, the Enquiry Officer, the Addl. S.P. Siddharth Nagar found the petitioner guilty of all the charges levelled in the Departmental Charge Sheet and thereafter, a show cause 2 of 5 notice was issued to the petitioner by the Superintendent of Police, Siddharth Nagar stating therein that why the services of the petitioner cannot be dismissed under the provision of Rule 4 (1) a (i) of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 to which he submitted reply on 07.03.2011. On 02.05.2011, the Superintendent of Police, Siddharth Nagar passed the punishment order dismissing the petitioner’s services under the provision of Rule 4 (1) a (i) of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. 8. Being aggrieved with the punishment order, the same has been put under challenge as per the statutory rules before the appellate authority by way of preferring an Appeal on 01.06.2011 before the Respondent No. 3, D.I.G., Basti Range, Basti under the provisions of Rule 20 of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 and the same was rejected vide order dated 22.03.2012. 9. The petitioner further put all his grievances by way of challenging the sanctity and genuineness of the punishment order along with appellate order before the revisional authority by way of filing revision and the same was also rejected vide order dated 09.06.2012, and thereafter, the present petition wherein the order of punishment, order passed in Appeal as well as the order passed in Revision have been put under challenge. 10. The prayer for seeking quashing of all the above mentioned three orders are based on several grounds inter-alia, the services of the petitioner has been dismissed without considering the 3 of 5 facts and circumstances and the allegation as framed against the petitioner does not commensurate with the punishment under Section Rule 14(1) of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. 11. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel rebutted the narrations as made in the petition by way of filing a detailed counter affidavit wherein all the three orders which are impugned in the instant petition has been supported by way of saying that the entire proceedings has been initiated strictly in accordance with the provisions as defined in the Rules and there is hardly any procedural flaw which creates any right in favour of the petitioner to challenge the same, whereas the instant petition is not maintainable when there is specific admission of the offence which has been framed under the charge which culminated into the order of punishment. 12. The Revisional Authority as well as the Appellate Authority considered the case of the petitioner and other materials available and came to the conclusion that order of punishment were just, legal and proper. 13. On careful examination of the records available in this writ petition, this Court finds that the entire proceedings has been initiated and finalized strictly under the provisions of Rule 14(1) of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. The petitioner was issued a show cause notice and procedure as prescribed in the said 1991 Rules for award of punishment as appropriately being followed. 4 of 5 14. Submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the factual aspect are difficult to be gone into by this Court in proceedings of this petition where writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been invoked.
Decision
17. The writ petition thus lacks merits and is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 06.04.2023 SY Digitally signed by :- SWETA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 5 of 5