Allahabad High Court
Ram Gopal Shukla vs State Of U.P. And Others on 4 December, 2012
Bench: Tarun Agarwala
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AFR
Court No. - 39
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2483 of 2011
Ram Gopal Shukla
Vs.
State of U.P. & Others
*****
Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala,J.
Pursuant to the order of the Court, the original record has been placed for its perusal.
The petitioner is a clerk in the office of the Superintendent of Police and, by the impugned order, 15 days salary has been deducted for dereliction of duty and for non-compliance of the order of the High Court and in not placing the appropriate file before the authority concerned.
The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is, that one Shambhu Yadav questioned his suspension order by filing Writ Petition No.30050 of 2008 in which an interim order dated 4.7.2008 was passed staying the suspension order till the next date of listing. This suspension order was received in the office of the Superintendent of Police Mau, U.P. from the office of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Azamgarh Range on 17.7.2008. The petitioner, who is a clerk, contends that he had placed the order of the High Court along with an office note before the Superintendent of Police Mau on 23.7.2008. The record indicates that no order was passed on this note. But at the same time the Court finds that a letter was issued from the office of the Superintendent of Police on 2.8.2008 seeking an opinion from the Chief Standing Counsel. The record also indicates that the file was again placed along with an office note on 26.8.2008, on which date, the Superintendent of Police issued an order seeking an opinion from the D.G.C. The record also indicates that the opinion of the D.G.C. was placed on the file on 4.9.2008 and thereafter another note dated 25.9.2008 was prepared by the petitioner. On these notes, no order has been passed by the Superintendent of Police and it is not clear as to whether the aforesaid notes was placed by the petitioner before the Superintendent of Police concerned. However, the record indicates that another letter dated 18.9.2008 was written by the Superintendent of Police to the Chief Standing Counsel requesting for issuance of another certified copy of the order of the High Court dated 4.7.2008 to enable the Superintendent of Police to comply with the order of the Court.
Since the order of the Writ Court was not complied, the Superintendent of Police, was hauled up in contempt proceedings. On this basis, the Superintendent of Police initiated an inquiry against the petitioner and thereafter the impugned order was passed for stoppage of salary for 15 days on the ground that appropriate file was not placed along with the order before the authority concerned.
Having perused the original file and upon hearing the learned counsel, the Court finds, that the action of the Superintendent of Police in passing the impugned order against the petitioner was wholly arbitrary and malicious. The file indicates that the matter was placed before the authority concerned. There is a letter written by the Superintendent of Police dated 2.8.2008 to the Chief Standing Counsel seeking an opinion. Then there is another letter written by the Superintendent of Police seeking an opinion from the D.G.C. The Court fails to fathom as to why an opinion was sought from the Chief Standing Counsel or from the D.G.C. in the first place when the order of the Court was clear and unambiguous. The suspension order was stayed and the authority, namely, the Superintendent of Police was required to comply with its order. There was no reason for the Superintendent of Police to seek an opinion. It is only when the contempt proceedings were drawn against the said officer that immediate compliance was made, and at that time, no opinion was sought by the Superintendent of Police from the Chief Standing Counsel or from the D.G.C. The Court gets an uncanny feeling that seeking an opinion from an Advocate was only a ploy to prolong the matter. The Court also gets a feeling that since the Superintendent of Police was hauled up in contempt proceedings, the authority targetted his guns against the petitioner and thereafter passed the impugned order.
In the opinion of the Court, the impugned order is patently malicious and cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed on payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- which shall be paid by the respondents to the petitioner within 30 days from the date of the production of a certified copy of the order.
The Registry is directed to send a certified copy of the order to the Chief Standing Counsel within a week who in turn is requested to send it to the Director General of Police to enable him to take necessary action against the officer concerned and for recovery of the cost.
Date :- 4.12.2012
AKJ
(Tarun Agarwala,J.)
