High Court · 2025

3. After hearing the parties and perusing the record what comes out is that the charge against the petitioner was of having taken the detenue from the police-lockup for being presented before the C.J.M. Court at Bahraich at 12:30 p.m. but he did not return with the detenue for the next two hours and in the interregnum took him to his house, in spite of the fact that this was completely impermissible, especially as the detenue was a history-sheeter.

4. Much emphasis has been laid by learned counsel for the petitioner upon the testimony of one Constable- Deep Chandra Chauhan in the preliminary enquiry to contend that as per his statement the detenue was brought back by the petitioner to the police-lockup after producing him before the Court of C.J.M, at 2:30 whereas in the enquiry report it has come that he came back with detenue at about 4:26 p.m.. Secondly, he submitted that the said Deep Chandra Chauhan was not produced in the regular enquiry, although the preliminary enquiry report has been relied in the charge sheet. He also laid great emphasis upon the fact that the allegation against the petitioner was that while he had taken the detenue from the police-lockup for being produced before the C.J.M. Court at Bahraich at 12:30 p.m. he came back at 4:30 p.m. whereas there is evidence to show that he came back at 2:30 p.m.. He further submitted that in interregnum as the detenue could not be produced before the C.J.M., Court therefore, he was taken to the 'Basta' of the advocate.

5. Per contra, Sri Nishant Shukla, learned Standing Counsel for the State has submitted that the petitioner is merely trying to take advantage of a typographical error where the timing 14:26 which is the time at which the petitioner came back to the police-lockup with the detenue has been incorrectly mentioned as 4:26 otherwise the facts are clear from the record that he took the detenue from the police-lockup for being produced before the C.J.M. at 12:30 p.m., and came back after two hours, which is at 14:26 and there is evidence on record including the charge- sheet containing the aforesaid facts. He then took us to the recitals/findings in the enquiry report to submit that the charge was clearly proved against the petitioner and this is not a case for interference.

6. We have gone through the judgment of the Tribunal and find that though the Tribunal has not considered relevant aspects of the matter in the way a quasi judicial authority is required to do, however, this by itself does not persuade us to quash the judgment or remand the matter as the records are before us. We have perused the charge-sheet as also the findings contained in the final enquiry report and the fact that Deep Chandra Chauhan, who was the witness in the preliminary enquiry report, was not produced in the final enquiry is inconsequential as even the said witness in the preliminary enquiry has testified that the petitioner returned with the detenue at 2:30 p.m. i.e. after two hours from the time he took the detenue for being produced before the C.J.M., Bahraich. We then find from the final enquiry report that apart from the fact that the witnesses, have been examined by the employer with sufficient opportunity for cross examination, they have proved the charges levelled against the petitioner.

7. We also find that the testimony of Shashi Bhushan Singh to the effect that he had taken his detenue- Valmiki Gautam at 12:30 p.m. on 2.11.2011 for being produced before the Court of C.J.M. and the petitioner herein had also taken his detenue- Rajmal Yadav for the same purpose at the same time. While Shashi Bhushan Singh came back to the police-lockup at 12:50 p.m. the petitioner did not return by then, then there is a testimony of Inspector- Jai Karan Singh, who has testified that Reserve Inspector Ram Prakash Yadav had informed him telephonically that the detenue-Rajmal Yadav was not in the court-lockup thereafter he sent Sub Inspector- Chandra Prakash Dwevedi to the court for verifying the fact, who responded telephonically that the petitioner and the detenue were not found in the court premises, possibly the petitioner had taken the detenue Rajmal Yadav to his house whereupon the said witness- Jai Karan Singh immediately contacted the Chauki In- charge Bashirganj under whose jurisdiction the detenue resided and he in-turn informed that the petitioner along with the detenue-Rajmal Yadav had visited the latter's house and they had left the house in hurry in a Nano Car. The said Chauki In- charge S.K.Singh has also been examined, who has supported the narration of facts by the other witness Jai Karan Singh. He has clearly testified having seen the petitioner along with the detenue leaving the house of the latter in a red colour unnumbered Nano car. Nothing more is required to be discussed. The charge is amply proved. We also find merit in the submission advanced by Sri Nishant Shukla, learned Standing Counsel for the State that there is typographical error at various places in report where instead of the timing 14:26, 4:26 has been mentioned and this obviously will not enure to the benefit of the petitioner as there is evidence to show that time of return is 14:26 and not 4:26. No interference is called for in the judgment of the Tribunal or the dismissal/appellate order.

8. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (Manjive Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Order Date :- 20.8.2025 Anuj Singh ANUJ PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

3. After hearing the parties and perusing the record what comes out is that the charge against the petitioner was of having taken the detenue from the police-lockup for being presented before the C.J.M. Court at Bahraich at 12:30 p.m. but he did not return with the detenue for the next two hours and in the interregnum took him to his house, in spite of the fact that this was completely impermissible, especially as the detenue was a history-sheeter.

4. Much emphasis has been laid by learned counsel for the petitioner upon the testimony of one Constable- Deep Chandra Chauhan in the preliminary enquiry to contend that as per his statement the detenue was brought back by the petitioner to the police-lockup after producing him before the Court of C.J.M, at 2:30 whereas in the enquiry report it has come that he came back with detenue at about 4:26 p.m.. Secondly, he submitted that the said Deep Chandra Chauhan was not produced in the regular enquiry, although the preliminary enquiry report has been relied in the charge sheet. He also laid great emphasis upon the fact that the allegation against the petitioner was that while he had taken the detenue from the police-lockup for being produced before the C.J.M. Court at Bahraich at 12:30 p.m. he came back at 4:30 p.m. whereas there is evidence to show that he came back at 2:30 p.m.. He further submitted that in interregnum as the detenue could not be produced before the C.J.M., Court therefore, he was taken to the 'Basta' of the advocate.

5. Per contra, Sri Nishant Shukla, learned Standing Counsel for the State has submitted that the petitioner is merely trying to take advantage of a typographical error where the timing 14:26 which is the time at which the petitioner came back to the police-lockup with the detenue has been incorrectly mentioned as 4:26 otherwise the facts are clear from the record that he took the detenue from the police-lockup for being produced before the C.J.M. at 12:30 p.m., and came back after two hours, which is at 14:26 and there is evidence on record including the charge- sheet containing the aforesaid facts. He then took us to the recitals/findings in the enquiry report to submit that the charge was clearly proved against the petitioner and this is not a case for interference.

6. We have gone through the judgment of the Tribunal and find that though the Tribunal has not considered relevant aspects of the matter in the way a quasi judicial authority is required to do, however, this by itself does not persuade us to quash the judgment or remand the matter as the records are before us. We have perused the charge-sheet as also the findings contained in the final enquiry report and the fact that Deep Chandra Chauhan, who was the witness in the preliminary enquiry report, was not produced in the final enquiry is inconsequential as even the said witness in the preliminary enquiry has testified that the petitioner returned with the detenue at 2:30 p.m. i.e. after two hours from the time he took the detenue for being produced before the C.J.M., Bahraich. We then find from the final enquiry report that apart from the fact that the witnesses, have been examined by the employer with sufficient opportunity for cross examination, they have proved the charges levelled against the petitioner.

7. We also find that the testimony of Shashi Bhushan Singh to the effect that he had taken his detenue- Valmiki Gautam at 12:30 p.m. on 2.11.2011 for being produced before the Court of C.J.M. and the petitioner herein had also taken his detenue- Rajmal Yadav for the same purpose at the same time. While Shashi Bhushan Singh came back to the police-lockup at 12:50 p.m. the petitioner did not return by then, then there is a testimony of Inspector- Jai Karan Singh, who has testified that Reserve Inspector Ram Prakash Yadav had informed him telephonically that the detenue-Rajmal Yadav was not in the court-lockup thereafter he sent Sub Inspector- Chandra Prakash Dwevedi to the court for verifying the fact, who responded telephonically that the petitioner and the detenue were not found in the court premises, possibly the petitioner had taken the detenue Rajmal Yadav to his house whereupon the said witness- Jai Karan Singh immediately contacted the Chauki In- charge Bashirganj under whose jurisdiction the detenue resided and he in-turn informed that the petitioner along with the detenue-Rajmal Yadav had visited the latter's house and they had left the house in hurry in a Nano Car. The said Chauki In- charge S.K.Singh has also been examined, who has supported the narration of facts by the other witness Jai Karan Singh. He has clearly testified having seen the petitioner along with the detenue leaving the house of the latter in a red colour unnumbered Nano car. Nothing more is required to be discussed. The charge is amply proved. We also find merit in the submission advanced by Sri Nishant Shukla, learned Standing Counsel for the State that there is typographical error at various places in report where instead of the timing 14:26, 4:26 has been mentioned and this obviously will not enure to the benefit of the petitioner as there is evidence to show that time of return is 14:26 and not 4:26. No interference is called for in the judgment of the Tribunal or the dismissal/appellate order.

8. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (Manjive Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Order Date :- 20.8.2025 Anuj Singh ANUJ PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench