High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:144341 Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19952 of 2019 Petitioner :- Mohammad Miyan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Atipriya Gautam Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Facts
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 2. By means of present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 17th October, 2018 in the nature of dismissal from service as well as appellate order dated 5th March, 2019 and the order dated 11th September, 2019 passed in revision. 3. The only short legal point argued before this Court is that enquiry officer could not have proposed punishment in the ultimate finding part of the enquiry report whereas in the present case enquiry officer,/ a circle officer while submitting enquiry report on 28th June, 2018 also made a recommendation for dismissal from service to be given effect to with the final approval by the authority and also denial of salary on the principal of "No Pay for No Work" for 672 days.
Legal Reasoning
7. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the records, I proceed to examine only this short legal point involved as to whether departmental enquiry report would get vitiated in law for having proposed punishment of dismissal from service and 'no work, no pay'. From the perusal of the enquiry report, it is clearly reflected that enquiry officer not only found the petitioner guilty of the charges but also proposed punishment for dismissal from service in the same report. The language is so set in the report that it amounts almost awarding punishment subject to the approval to be granted by the authority. The relevant portion (conclusion) of the enquiry report is reproduced hereunder: "ननिष्कररर- उ्ሹ नविभभागगीय कभायरविभाहगी कके ददौरभानि एकनቔኌत ठठोस सभाቌኚयोሱ एविवं पቔኌभाविलगी पर उपलब्ध पपु्ቖ अनभलकेखगीय सभाቌኚयोሱ कके आधभार पर मम पगीठभासगीनि अधधकभारगी इस ननिष्करर पर पहहवंचभा हहवं नक आरठोपगी आरकगी 1668 निभा०पपु० मदौ० नमयभावं थभानिभा मठोदगीनिगर जनिपद गभाधजयभाबभाद नदनिभावंक-17.02.2015 कठो नबनिभा स्विगीककत अविकभाश/अनिपुमनत कके अपनिगी मजቌኍ वि स्विकेच्छभा सके अनिभाधधककत रूप सके 672 नदविस अनिपुपसस्थत हठोकर नदनिभावंक-19.12.2016 कठो रठो०आम० रपट निवं०-51 समय 18.35 बजके पर विभापस आयभा। उ्ሹ आरकगी कके अऩपुपसस्थनत कके सवंबवंध मम शगी आशगीर शगीविभास्तवि, सहभायक पपुधलस अधगीकक/ककेቔኌभाधधकभारगी सदर, गभाधजयभाबभाद दभारभा पभारसमभक जभााምच समपभानदत ककी गयगी, धजसकके ददौरभानि उ्ሹ आरकगी निके बगीमभारगी कके कभारण अनिपुपसस्थत हठोनिभा बतभातके हहयके कनतपय ससूचनिभा पकेनरत ककी गयगी, नकन्तपु पभारसमभक जभााምच कके ददौरभानि एकनቔኌत सभाቌኚयोሱ कके आधभार पर आरठोपगी उ्ሹ आरकगी कठो नदनिभावंक - 17.02.2015 कके अनिभाधधककत रूप सके अनिपुपसस्थत हठोनिके कभा दठोरगी पभायभा और पभारसमभक जभावंच कके ददौरभानि उ्ሹ आरकगी कठो पयभार् अविसर कके उपरभान्त भगी विह अपनिगी तथभाकधथत बगीमभारगी कके सवंबवंध मम कठोई ठठोस सभाቌኚय पस्तपुत निहीሻ कर सकभा और उसकके दभारभा पस्तपुत ककी गयगी ससूचनिभाओवं ककी भगी पभारसमभक जभााምच कके ददौरभानि पपुन्ቖ निहीሻ हठो पभायगी। उपरठो्ሹ पकरण कके सवंबवंध मम मकेरके पसूविभारधधकभारगी एविवं मकेरके दभारभा नविभभागगीय कभायरविभाहगी समपभानदत कर एकनቔኌत ककी गयगी अनभयठोजनि पक ककी ठठोस सभाቌኚयोሱ कके आधभार पर भगी उ्ሹ आरठोपगी आरकगी कके नविरू्ቍ पभासमभक जभााምच कके ददौरभानि लगभायके गयके आरठोपगी ककी बखसूबगी पपुन्ቖ हहई तथभा अनभयठोजनि पक कके सभाቌኚयोሱ दभारभा पभारसमभक जभावंच कके ददौरभानि नदयके गयके अनभकथनिोሱ ककी नविभभागगीय कभायरविभाहगी कके ददौरभानि पपुन्ቖ करतके हहयके उ्ሹ आरकगी कके नविरू्ቍ ठठोस अनभयठोजनि सभाቌኚय पस्तपुत ककी। उ्ሹ नविभभागगीय कभायरविभाहगी कके ददौरभानि आरठोपगी आरकगी कठो पयभार् अविसर पदभानि नकयके जभानिके एविवं कई बभार बभाजभातखभास ससूचनिभा पभा् करनिके कके उपरभान्त भगी समपसूणर पनቅኌयभा समभा् हठोनिके तक अपनिगी अनिपुपसस्थनत कके सवंबवंध मम कठोई ठठोस सभाቌኚय पस्तपुत निहीሻ ककी। इससके स्प्ቖ हहै नक उ्ሹ आरठोपगी आरकगी पपुधलस नविभभाग जहैसहै सवंगनठत एविवं अनिपुशभाधसत बल मम भगी स्विछन्द पविकधቈኌ कठो अपनिभातभा हहै और विह अनिपुपसस्थत हठोनिके कभा आदगी हहै। पश्निगत नविभभागगीय कभायरविभाहगी कके ददौरभानि पभारसमभक जभावंच कके आधभार पर आरठोपगी आरकगी कठो पदभानि नकयके गयके आरठोप पቔኌ मम उनቤኌधखत आरठोप ककी, उसकके नविरू्ቍ ठठोस सभाቌኚयोሱ कके आधभार पपुन्ቖ हठोतगी हहै तथभा उ्ሹ आरठोप पቔኌ कके सवंबवंध मम आरठोपगी आरकगी दभारभा पकेनरत नकयके गयके स्प्ቖगीकरण मम उसकके दभारभा पस्तपुत तथ्योሱ मम कठोई बल पतगीत निहीሻ हठोतभा हहै। आरठोपगी आरकगी मदौ० नमयभााም कके नविरू्ቍ थभानिभा खतदौलगी जनिपद मपुजफ्फरनिगर पर करगीब 07 अनभयठोग नविनभ्ቐ धभारभाओवं कके पवंजगीककत हहै। आरठोपगी आरकगी मदौ० नमयभााም थभानिभा खतदौलगी कभा मजररयभा नहस्टटगीशगीटर हहै, धजसकभा नहस्टटगीशगीट निवं०-28 ए हहै। अतर उपरठो्ሹ समपसूणर तथ्योሱ एविवं सभाቌኚयोሱ कके आधभार पर मम इस ननिष्करर पर पहहवंचभा हहाም नक आरठोपगी आरकगी 1668 निभा०पपु० मदौ० नमयभााም थभानिभा मठोदगीनिगर जनिपद गभाधजयभाबभाद (वितरमभानि ननियपुन्ሹ पपुधलस लभाईनि) नबनिभा अनिपुमनत एविवं अविकभाश कके अनिभाधधककत रूप सके 672 नदविस अनिपुपसस्थत रहनिके एविवं उच्चभाधधकभाररयोሱ कके आदकेशोሱ ककी अविकेहलनिभा करनिके तथभा कतरव्य कके पनत उदभासगीनितभा बरतनिके कके धलयके दठोरगी हहै। सवंस्तपुनतर- अतएवि उपरठो्ሹ सभाቌኚयोሱ कके पररपकेष्य मम आरठोपगी आरकगी 1168 निभा०पपु० मदौ० नमयभााም थभानिभा मठोदगीनिगर (वितरमभानि ननियपुन्ሹ पपुधलस लभाईनि, गभा०बभाद) कठो उቈኌर पदकेश पपुधलस कके अधधकभारगी/कमरचभारगीगण ककी (दण्ड एविवं अपगील) ननियमभाविलगी-1991 कके ननियम 4(1) कके खण्ड (क) कके अन्तगरत सकेविभा सके बखभारस्त(पदच्यपुत) नकयके जभानिके ककी सवंस्तपुनत ककी जभातगी हहै। पቔኌभाविलगी सवंख्यभा-पगीएफ-24/2016 (ቅኌमभावंक-01 सके 272) तक पभारसमभक जभावंच पቔኌभाविलगी-ज-214/016. (ቅኌमभावंक-01 सके 39 तक) सवंल्ሿ कर मसूल रूप मम विभापस ककी जभा रहगी हहै। यह आदकेश विरर् पपुधलस अधगीकक, गभाधजयभाबभाद महठोदय कके आदकेश सके पभभाविगी हठोगभा।" 8. From the perusal of the reply to the show cause notice submitted by the petitioner, it clearly transpires that petitioner had taken this stand that enquiry officer could not have proposed punishment. 9. Thus, I find that disciplinary authority has not found any error in the enquiry report as far as proposed punishment is concerned. I find that disciplinary authority has held recommendation of the proposed punishment to be lawful in order to test this finding part of the disciplinary authority, I proceed to examine the relevant Rule 14 and appendix already reproduced above. 10. From a bare reading of the provision, it is apparent that disciplinary authority is vested with the power to exercise its discretion to inflict punishment and enquiry officer is only required to submit report bringing home the charge. The enquiry officer may make recommendation for a punishment but under a specific separate order whereas in the present case, punishment has been proposed alongwith finding part. 11. Thus in the instant case not only enquiry officer brought home the charge but also made recommendation which was certainly beyond the scope and authority of the enquiry officer as contemplated under Rule 14(I). Manner and method in which enquiry report is to be submitted as reflected from the Appendix- I, it is clear that enquiry officer is only to bring home charge and submit final leaving it to the discretion of the disciplinary authority to take action upon report. The decision that have been cited clearly speak of law to the effect that an enquiry officer's domain is only to submit report and not to propose punishment. 12. The relevant paragraph of the judgment is reproduced hereunder: " This aspect has already considered in State of Uttranchal and others v. Kharak Singh, MANU/SC/7951/2008: 2008 (8) SCC 236 and Court has held, if in inquiry report, punishment is also recommended by Inquiry Officer, it is a grave illegality for the reason that appropriate punishment is the exclusive jurisdiction of punishing or disciplinary authority and Inquiry Officer's only job is to enquire, whether charge levelled against delinquent employee is proved or not." 13. In view of above, the argument advanced by learned Standing Counsel that petitioner's conduct was such that he did not deserve any equity before this Court cannot be accepted. Authority is to pass order well within the rules prescribed for and if any authority exceeds his authority so vested in law in passing an order, such an order becomes void ab initio. 14. It is well settled principle of law that when statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, it should be done in that manner alone (Krishna Rai v. Banaras Hindu University and others (2022) 8 SCC 713). 15. In such above view of the matter, the enquiry officer's recommendation of the preposed punishment from dismissal of service as well as denial of salary on principle of 'No Work No Pay' cannot be approved of. The report also deserves to be set aside and so also consequential order of dismissal of the petitioner and so also the order passed by the appellate authority and order of authority sitting in revision also deserve to be set aside. 16. Thus writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of punishment dated 17th October, 2018 in the nature of dismissal from service as well as order dated 5th March, 2019 passed by appellate authority and the order dated 11th September, 2019 passed in revision are hereby quashed. 17. The matter is remitted to the disciplinary authority to get the enquiry report in the matter afresh by appointing enquiry officer other than officer who had previously held, the enquiry within two weeks of production of certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall be participating in the enquiry. The enquiry shall start from the stage of reply already submitted by petitioner and enquiry report shall be submitted within a maximum period of two months from the date of appointment of enquiry officer. The disciplinary authority, thereafter shall proceed to take appropriate decision in the matter within a further period of one month in compliance of principles of natural justice. The status of the petitioner in the meanwhile shall continue to remain the same as was at the time of passing of order of punishment by the disciplinary authority. Order Date :- 21.8.2025 Atmesh Digitally signed by :- ATMESH KESARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon Rule 14(1) read with Appendix-1 of the U.P. Police Officer of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. The relevant rules and Appendix-1 are reproduced hereunder: "14(1) Procedure for conducting departmental proceedings- (1) subject to the provisions contained in these rules, the departmental proceedings in the case referred to in sub-rule (1) of rule 5 against to the police officers May br conducted in accordance with the procedure laid down in appendix- I "APPENDIX-1 PROCEDURE RELATING TO THE CONDUCT OF DEPARTMENTAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST POLICE OFFICER Upon institution of a formal enquiry such police officer against whom the enquiry has been instituted shall be informed in writing of the grounds on which it is 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 in the form of a definite charge or charges as in Form I 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 charged 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 findings 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." 5. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that despite stand taken in reply to show cause notice by the petitioner that enquiry officer exceeded his authority in making recommendation of punishment alongwith finding part of enquiry report and thus he contends enquiry report stood vitiated in law, the disciplinary authority absolutely ignoring this stand of the petitioner in his reply proceeded to impose major penalty of dismissal from service. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the authority of this Court in the case of Mohd. Haneef Khan v. State of U.P (Service Bench No. 314 of 2010) decided on 03.04.2017. 6. Learned Standing Counsel on the contrary tried to defend the order on the ground that conduct of the petitioner in police force has been indicative of gross indiscipline, and accordingly this Court may not interfere in the matter exercising equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.