High Court
Case Details
1 Writ C No.4317 of 2008. Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:203484 Court No. - 10 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4317 of 2008 Petitioner :- Prem Chandra Dixit Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Rai,Abhinav Gaur,Anoop Trivedi,Atipriya Gautam,Sourabh Pathak,Vandeep Nath,Vibhu Rai,Vijay Gautam,Vinod Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. Heard Shri Pankaj Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and perused the record. 2. Pursuant to various orders passed on previous occasions, original record has again been produced before this Court. The same has been perused by the Court. Infact, the records were summoned on the allegations of the petitioner contained in the writ petition that he was neither served with the copy of charge-sheet nor the copies of the statements of witnesses and that the entire departmental inquiry leading to his punishment was faulty and contrary to the provisions of law. 3. The petitioner was appointed as a Constable in Police Department on 15.02.1988. After more than 10 years of service, he moved a compliant before the Chief Secretary of the State Government, U.P. Lucknow that various Officials at different levels in the Police Department were committing violation of human rights and fundamental rights by involving themselves in fake encounters. It is
Legal Reasoning
pleaded that a complaint was moved against Shri V.K. Shekhar A.S.P. (Rural), Ummed Singh (Circle Officer, Hapur), Y.P. Ahalawat (Inspector Kotwali, Hapur), Sri Pramod Kumar Sharma (S.S.I.) and Bijendra Rawat (S.I.). 2 4. The case of the petitioner is that the officers, against whom, the Writ C No.4317 of 2008. allegations were levelled in the complaint themselves became Inquiry Officers in the matter and, later on, on the basis of recommendations made by them, departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. 5. I have perused the entire record of writ petition, counter and rejoinder affidavits and compared the same with the original record. 6. The complaint submitted by the petitioner was taken up for consideration and a preliminary inquiry was set up. The S.P. (Rural)- Ghaziabad, during the course of such preliminary inquiry, recorded the statements of the accused persons. The conclusion drawn by S.P. (Rural) in the preliminary inquiry dated 28.10.2004 was that no substance was found in the petitioner’s complaint, rather he was responsible for maligning the image of the entire Police Department, and, therefore, departmental proceedings were recommended against him. 7. Later on, departmental proceedings were initiated and the preliminary inquiry was completed by S.P. (Traffic) Ghaziabad who submitted his report dated 22.02.2005 recommending departmental proceedings against the petitioner in terms of U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment And Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules, 1991’). Even in the said preliminary inquiry report, not only stand of the petitioner was examined but also he was subjected to question-answer sessions and even statements of those against whom the petitioner had raised allegations were recorded in the presence of petitioner. An opinion was formed on the basis of detailed proceedings that it was the petitioner who was trying to shield persons accused of heinous crimes and infact was pursuing their cause which is 3 Writ C No.4317 of 2008. contrary to the oath taken under the Flag of the Nation that he would ensure prosecution of the culprits of criminal cases. 8. Pursuant to the preliminary enquiry report dated 22.02.2005, detailed inquiry proceedings were set up against the petitioner and charge-sheet was prepared. Though the allegation of the petitioner is that the charge-sheet was never served upon the petitioner, original record reveals record of proceedings by preparation of order sheet by the Departmental Authorities. The record further reveals that notices were not only served upon the petitioner but also affixed at his residence and necessary reports were prepared regarding affixation in the presence of witnesses also. 9. The order sheet/note sheet prepared under Rule 14 of the Rules, 1991 by the Department reads as follows:- " नोट शीट 14(1) के अन्त्ቇ(cid:13)त कान्स० 912 CP ्ቚेमचन््ቖ दीቌኌ(cid:23)त के वि(cid:25)रू्ቍ वि(cid:25)भा्ቇीय काय(cid:13)(cid:25)ाही PF- 8/05 12.5.05 प्ቔा(cid:25)ली ्ቚा्। अध्ययन करके आरोप प्ቔ तैयार विकया जाए्ቇा। 14.5.05 : आरोप प्ቔ तैयार है। आरोप प्ቔ ्ቚा् कराने के लिलए विद० 20.5.05 विनयत नोविटस भेजा ्ቇया। 20.5.05 वि(cid:25)शेष (cid:25)ाहक के माध्यम से थाना सेक्टर-58 पर आरोपी ्ቚेमचन््ቖ दीቌኌ(cid:23)त के तैनाती स्थान पर नोविटस भेजा ्ቇया। आरोपी उपቝኌस्थत नहीं हुआ। आरोप प्ቔ ्ቚा् कराने के लिलए विदनांक 27.5.05 विनयत की ्ቇयी। 27.5.05 आरोपी कास० ्ቚेमचन््ቖ दीቌኌ(cid:23)त उपቝኌस्थत नहीं हुआ जबविक नोविटस आरोपी के तैनाती थाना सेक्टर-58 GBN भेजा ्ቇया। आरोपी अनुपቝኌस्थत चल रहा है। विद० 15.6.05 विनयत। 15.6.05 आरोपी ्ቚेमचन््ቖ दीቌኌ(cid:23)त उपቝኌस्थत नहीं हुआ। विदनांक 8.8.05 विनयत। 4 Writ C No.4317 of 2008. 8.8.05 आरोपी ्ቚेमचन््ቖ दीቌኌ(cid:23)त को नोविटस विदनांक 4.8.05 को विद० बजातखास ्ቚा्, विकन्तु आरोप प्ቔ ्ቚा् करने हेतु उपቝኌस्थत नहीं हुआ। विदनांक 13.8.05 विनयत की ्ቇयी। 13.8.05 आरोपी उपቝኌस्थत नहीं हुआ। नोविटस विकस्म दोयम तामील हुआ। 26.8.05 बार-बार बुलाये जाने पर भी आरोपी आर(cid:23)ी ्ቚेमचन््ቖ दीቌኌ(cid:23)त आरोप प्ቔ ्ቚा् करने के लिलए उपቝኌस्थत नहीं हो रहा है। इस आशय की आख्या SSP को भेजी ्ቇयी। आरोपी कास० ्ቚेमचन््ቖ दीቌኌ(cid:23)त को जनपद GBN से GZB सम्ब्ቍ 31.8.05 कराने हेतु आख्या ्ቚेविषत की ्ቇयी। वि(cid:25)शेष (cid:25)ाहक कास० 1074 अ्ቫनी कु मार थाना वि(cid:25)जयन्ቇर के माध्यम से आरोप प्ቔ की एक ्ቚቌኌत आर(cid:23)ी ्ቚेमचन््ቖ दीቌኌ(cid:23)त को तामील कराने के लिलए भेजी ्ቇयी। कास० अ्ቫनी कु मार ने अपनी आख्या के माध्यम से अ(cid:25)्ቇत कराया 01.9.05 विक आरोप प्ቔ को SSP GBN के माध्यम से भिभज(cid:25)ाया जाए। तथा बताया विक (cid:25)ह स्(cid:25)यं पीठासीन अቌኌ=कारी के सम(cid:23) विद० 1-9-05 को उपቝኌस्थत होकर तामील करे्ቇा। आरोपी ्ቚेमचन््ቖ दीቌኌ(cid:23)त उपቝኌस्थत हुआ। आरोप प्ቔ की एक ्ቚቌኌत दी ्ቇयी। उसने उसे ध्यानपू(cid:25)(cid:13)क पढा विकन्तु उसने आरोप प्ቔ ्ቚा् नहीं विकया जबविक उसे काफी समझाया ्ቇया और तामील कराने का ्ቚयास विकया। उसने आरोप प्ቔ ्ቚा् नहीं विकया। इसने ्ቚा०प्ቔ ्ቚस्तुत कर अ(cid:25)्ቇत कराया विक पुलिलस महाविनरी(cid:23)क मेरठ जाने मेरठ से ्ቚबल की पुनः जांच कराये जाने का अनुरो= विकया है। जिजस पर पुनः जांच के आदेश जारी होने बताये। विकन्तु ऐसा कोई आदेश ्ቚा् नहीं हुआ है। 17.9.05 आरोपी आर(cid:23)ी ्ቚेमचन््ቖ दीቌኌ(cid:23)त ्ቛारा वि(cid:25)शेष (cid:25)ाहक के माध्यम विदनांक से भेजे ्ቇए आरोप प्ቔ को पढ लिलया विकन्तु तामील करने से मना कर विदया ्ቇया। इसके बाद आरोपी आर(cid:23)ी मेरे सम(cid:23) भी विदनांक 1.9.05 को उपቝኌस्थत हुआ। आरोप प्ቔ उसे पढाया ्ቇया और एक ्ቚቌኌत तामील करने के लिलए कहा ्ቇया तो आरोपी ने आरोप प्ቔ औपचारिरक रूप से ्ቚा् करने से मना कर विदया और कहा विक सन्दቝኌभत ्ቚकरण में 1,6 महोदय ्ቛारा जांच के पुनः आदेश कर विदये है। ऐसा कोई आदेश आज तक भी ्ቚा् नहीं हुआ है। अतःएक प(cid:23)ीय वि(cid:25)भा्ቇीय काय(cid:13)(cid:25)ाही ्ቚारम्भ करने के आदेश पारिरत विकये जाते है अभिभयोजन प(cid:23) के ्ቇ(cid:25)ाहो के ब्यान हेतु विदनांक 24.9.05 विनयत की जाती है। 24.9.05 आरोपी आर(cid:23)ी ्ቚेमचन््ቖ दीቌኌ(cid:23)त को एक प(cid:23)ीय वि(cid:25)भा्ቇीय काय(cid:13)(cid:25)ाही ्ቚारम्भ करने (cid:25) विद० 24.9.05 को जिजरह हेतु उपቝኌस्थत रहने के लिलए आदेश की बजातखास तामील की ्ቇयी। आरोपी (cid:25) अभिभयोजन प(cid:23) के ्ቇ(cid:25)ाह उपቝኌस्थत नहीं है। अतः विदनांक 11.10.05 विनयत की जाती है। 5 Writ C No.4317 of 2008. 11.10.05 आरोपी (cid:25) अभिभयोजन सा(cid:23)ी उपቝኌस्थत नहीं हुए। अविMम ቌኌतभिथ 28.10.05 विनयत की ्ቇयी। 28.10.05 अारोपी आर(cid:23)ी ्ቚेमचन््ቖ दीቌኌ(cid:23)त उपቝኌस्थत नहीं हुआ। अभिभयोजन सा(cid:23)ी ्ቦी वि(cid:25)जय कु मार ्ቇ्ቇ(cid:13), अ०पु०अ० तथा ्ቦी (cid:25)ी०के ० शेखर SP देहात ्ቇा०बाद, ्ቦी उम्मेद िሺसह CO मोदीन्ቇर उपቝኌस्थत हुए। अभिभयोजन साቌኌ(cid:23)यों के बयान अंविकत विकये ्ቇए। अविMम ቌኌतभिथ 9.1.05 विनयत की ्ቇयी। 09.11.05 अारोपी आर(cid:23)ी ्ቚेमचन््ቖ दीቌኌ(cid:23)त उपቝኌस्थत नहीं हुए। अभिभयोजन सा(cid:23)ी विनरी(cid:23)क भी यो्ቇेन््ቖ पाल जिसहं अहला(cid:25)त , विनरी(cid:23)क ्ቦी संतोष कु मार याद(cid:25) (cid:25) उ०विन० ्ቦी ्ቚमोद कु मार शमा(cid:13) उपቝኌस्थत हुए। अभिभयोजन सा(cid:23)ी्ቇण के बयान अंविकत विकए ्ቇए। बचा(cid:25) प(cid:23) हेतु 15 विदन का समय देते हुए आरोपी को प्ቔ भेजा जाए्ቇा। 15.11.05 अारोपी आर(cid:23)ी जो अपने बचा(cid:25) हेतु ्ቇ(cid:25)ाहो/साቌኚयों को उपቝኌस्थत कराने के लिलए 15 विदन का समय विदया ्ቇया। 1.12.05 अभी तक आरोपी ने अपने बचा(cid:25) के ्ቇ(cid:25)ाह ्ቚस्तुत नहीं विकए। पुनः 12.12.05 तक का समय विदया ्ቇया। 12.12.05 आरोपी आर(cid:23)ी ्ቛारा अपने बचा(cid:25) प(cid:23) के ्ቇ(cid:25)ाह उपቝኌस्थत नहीं कराये। विदनाांक 15.1.06 तक बचा(cid:25) प(cid:23) के ्ቇ(cid:25)ाह ्ቚस्तुत करने हेतु समय ्ቚदान विकया ्ቇया। 15.1.06 आरोपी ्ቛारा बचा(cid:25) प(cid:23) के कोई ्ቇ(cid:25)ाह ्ቚस्तुत नहीं विकया। 22.1.06 तक का समय विदया जाता है। 01.2.06 अारोपी आर(cid:23)ी ्ቚेमचन््ቖ दीቌኌ(cid:23)त को बचा(cid:25) के पया(cid:13)् अ(cid:25)सर ्ቚदान विकए ्ቇए है। बार-बार नोविटस भेजने पर भी बचा(cid:25) में ्ቇ(cid:25)ाह/ साቌኚय ्ቚस्तुत नहीं विकये है। बचा(cid:25) के कोई ्ቇ(cid:25)ाह ्ቚस्तुत नहीं करना चाहता है, ऐसा ्ቚतीत होता है। नोविटस भी तामील करने से मना कर देता है। अब इस वि(cid:25)भा्ቇीय काय(cid:13)(cid:25)ाही को लाቝኌम्बत रखने का औቌኌचत्य नहीं है। फाईቌኌS्ቇ तैयार कर ्ቚेविषत है। ह०अपठनीय 01.2.06” 6 Writ C No.4317 of 2008. 10. A perusal of the aforesaid proceedings shows that time and again the charge-sheet was tried to be served upon the petitioner by different modes but the petitioner was deliberately avoiding receipt of the same. Ultimately, at one point of time, the Officer succeeded to serve upon him charge-sheet which was thoroughly read to him but he did not receive copy of the charge-sheet. The proceedings further reveal that after adopting various methods, the Department proceeded by recording a clear finding that the petitioner was avoiding participation in the inquiry, he did not appear before the Authorities nor got his statement recorded and entire object was to somehow delay the departmental proceedings. 11. The inquiry report dated 01.02.2006 also records the same facts though in a concise form, however, it is relevant to mention that when the Department proceeded for cross-examination of the witnesses by the petitioner, the petitioner absented himself and, therefore, no cross- examination could take place. Ultimately, the Inquiry Officer submitted the report. Later on, punishment order has been passed dismissing the petitioner from service. The order has been affirmed in appeal and revision. 12. The submission of Shri Mishra is that there is violation of Rule 14 of Rules, 1991. It is contended that as per Rule 5(1) of the Rules, 1991, inquiry has to be conducted as per Rule 14(1) of the Rules, 1991 in cases where major punishment may be awarded and there is Appendix-I referable to Rule 14(1) of the Rules, 1991, in which, apart from various things, it has been mentioned that the Inquiry Officer may separately for these proceedings make his own recommendation regarding punishment to be imposed on the charged Officer. It is contended that in the present case, no separate opinion was formed by 7 Writ C No.4317 of 2008. the concerned Officer, rather recommendation for punishment was contained in the inquiry report itself. 13. Shri I.P. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that once the matter began with raising allegations against the Police Officers by a Constable and various inquiries, both preliminary and final in nature were conducted and no substance was found in the complaint made by the petitioner against the Officers and when the matter proceeded against him, he avoided participation in the departmental proceedings and despite sufficient service of charge-sheet upon him, when he failed to respond to the charges and did not appear in the departmental proceedings, there was no other option left with the Department but to conclude the departmental proceedings and, therefore, the grounds raised are not available to the petitioner and he cannot argue that he was not provided any opportunity in the proceedings. 14. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that petitioner moved complaint in 2004 and for a period of more than two years, the proceedings not only at the instance of the petitioner but also against him were thoroughly conducted by the Department. Every accused was examined during the course of proceedings, the documents were perused, the petitioner was provided sufficient opportunity to participate in the inquiry, he, in fact, also participated during the course of preliminary inquiries, gave answers to the questions raised to him, statements of witnesses were recorded in his presence but finally when the Department was proceeding against him, he adopted all such means by which the inquiry against him could be delayed or somehow not concluded. The record of proceedings noted hereinabove coupled with other documents on record clearly reflect that the Department has not committed violation of any rule before punishing the petitioner. 8 Writ C No.4317 of 2008. 15. Insofar as the argument based upon Appendix-I is concerned, last line of the same cannot be read in isolation. Even if, the argument of Shri Mishra is accepted to the effect that the recommendation to punish the petitioner could not form part of the inquiry report, and if the said part of the inquiry report is ignored, ultimate decision taken against the petitioner is based upon critical analysis of entire proceedings and dismissal order cannot be set aside merely for the reason that in the last part, the Inquiry Officer had made recommendation for awarding major punishment. Things have to be seen in their entirety and not in piecemeal. 16. Even otherwise, I have perused the original record in order to find out as to whether there is any separate recommendation made by the Authorities for punishing the petitioner and I find that after the inquiry report was prepared on 01.02.2006, the petitioner was again called upon by the Authorities and following proceedings took place. स्प्ቖीकर का० 922CP ्ቚेमचन््ቖ दीቌኌ(cid:23)त पुलिलस लाइन बुलन्दशहर स(cid:25)ाल जबाब रिरमाक(cid:13) आपको विदनांक 08.2.06 हस्ब मन्जूर शुदा 14 विदन EL अ(cid:25)काश पर (cid:25)ापसी विदनांक (cid:25) समय बताकर र(cid:25)ाना विकया ्ቇया था आपको बाद समा् अ(cid:25)कास विद० 22.2.06 को अपरान्ह में (cid:25)ापस आना था आप नहीं आये और अनुपቝኌस्थत हो ्ቇये जिजसके सम्बन्= में विदनांक 22.2.06 को रपट नं० 39 , 12.05 समय बजे पर ्ቇैर हाजिजरी अंविकत है। आप आज विदनांक 25.2.06 को रपट नं 28 समय 10.45 पर 3 विदन 10 घन्टे विमनट 45 अनुपቝኌस्थत रहकर (cid:25)ापस आये हो आपका यह कृ त्य लापर(cid:25)ाही और अनुशासनहीनता का ्ቚतीक है। ्ቦीमान जी, विन(cid:25)ेदन है विक ्ቚाथW अ(cid:25)काश विद0 8.2.06 को ्ቇया था जिजसकी (cid:25)ापसी विनयमानुसार आज विद० 25.2.06 को होनी थी 3 विदन परमीशन बीच में पSती है नुकसान पहु ंचाने की विनयत से विद० 22.2.06 को ्ቇैरहाजिजरी दज(cid:13) कर दी है अतः शासनादेश का खुला उ्ቤंघन विकया ्ቇया है जब विक शासनादेश में कम(cid:13)० को सुवि(cid:25)=ा दी ्ቇई है विक अ(cid:25)काश के दौरान बीच में पSने (cid:25)ाले अ(cid:25)काश का लाभ विदया जाय उ०्ቚ० शासनादेश सं० 2093/Z-B-10-11957 विद० 1.12.1958 ्ቛारा परिरचलिलत है। लखनऊ विद० 10 अक्टू बर 1979 महोदय, आर(cid:23)ी जानबूझकर ्ቇै० हा०हुआ है इस आर(cid:23)ी ने अपने ्ቚा०प्ቔ में परमीशन की ቌኌतभिथयों का उ्ቤेख भी नहीं विकया ्ቇया है और मंजूर भी नहीं विकया ्ቇया है घोर लापर(cid:25)ाही अनुशासनहीनता का ्ቕोतक है। अतः O.R में दቝኌ\Sत करने की संस्तुቌኌत की जाती है। ह०अप० 27.2.06 कल्याण िሺसह ्ቚቌኌतसार विनरी(cid:23)क पुलिलस लाईन, बुलन्दशहर 9 Writ C No.4317 of 2008. अतः आप उ्ሹ सम्बन्= में अपना स्प्ቖीकरण ्ቚस्तुत करें। ह०अप० 25.2.06 ्ቚቌኌतसार विनरी(cid:23)क पुलिलस लाइन बुलन्दशहर काኌमक सं० 3.1.1979- काኌमक- 1 है। अतः ्ቦीमान जी से क(cid:25)(cid:13)्ቍ विन(cid:25)ेदन है विक जबाब पर सहानुभूቌኌत पू(cid:25)(cid:13)क वि(cid:25)चार करते हुए माफ करने की कृ पा करें जिजससे ्ቚाथW को न्याय विमल सके तथा कानून में आस्था बनी रहे। C/ 922 ्ቚेमचन््ቖ दीቌኌ(cid:23)त 25.2.06 17.
Decision
In view of the above, separate recommendation is also there and, hence the argument of alleged violation of the requirements of Appendix-I also have no substance. 18. In the considered opinion of the Court, the petitioner, being a Constable in the Police Department, has utterly abused his position and not only tried his best to malign image of the entire Department but also directly interacted with the State Government which, otherwise, is also against the service discipline and, in fact, such direct communication with the State Government without taking into confidence the Department is strictly prohibited under the service law. 19. In view of the above, I do not find any good ground to interfere in the order of punishment. 20. The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed. 21. The original record retained earlier shall be immediately returned to the learned Standing Counsel for remittance to the concerned department/authority. Order Date :- 19.10.2023 Jyotsana Digitally signed by :- JYOTSANA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad