Allahabad High Court
Pandhari Saroj vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 28 April, 2016
Bench: Tarun Agarwala, Prabhat Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
A.F.R.
Court No. - 37
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15815 of 2014
Petitioner :- Pandhari Saroj
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Krishna Koli
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala,J.
Hon'ble Prabhat Chandra Tripathi,J.
(Delivered by Hon. Prabhat Chandra Tripathi, J.)
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner Pandhari Saroj, who is a dismissed Civil Police Constable of U.P. Police, has preferred this writ petition to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 28.2.2000 passed by the respondent no. 5, order dated 15.3.2001 passed by the respondent no. 4 by approving the dismissal order, order dated 30.4.2002 passed by the respondent no. 3 in dismissing the revision as well as order dated 12.12.2013 passed by the respondent no. 6 dismissing the claim petition of the petitioner and also to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent no. 5 to reinstate the petitioner.
Briefly, the facts of this case are as follows:-
The petitioner was a Civil Police Constable of Uttar Pradesh Police. While his posting as such in the Police Station 'Refinery' of District Mathura on 30.12.1998, he was assigned the job of service of summons in the districts namely Farrukhabad, Mainpuri, Etawah, Allahabad, Sant Kabir Nagar, Ballia, Lucknow and Kanpur Nagar etc. As per the facts mentioned in the writ petition, the petitioner fell ill due to cold winter season and he was hospitalized on 7.1.1999 in District Hospital, Mirzapur and remained there from 7.1.1999 to 30.3.1999 for the treatment. The information to this effect was sent by the petitioner to respondent no. 5 on 8.1.1999 through U.P.C. Post. The petitioner joined his duty on 31.3.1999 and submitted medical certificate.
On 09.9.9.1999, a charge sheet was served upon the petitioner by the Enquiry Officer for his illegal absence for a period of 90 days. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge sheet on 15.9.1999 and denied the charges levelled against him. The Enquiry Officer after fixing the date, recorded the statements of the witnesses and thereafter submitted enquiry report to the respondent no. 5 on 14.11.1999 mentioning therein to grant him leave without pay.
The respondent no. 5 disagreed with the enquiry report and remanded back the original record to the Enquiry Officer and by order dated 27.11.1999, the respondent no. 5 issued a show cause notice on 8.2.2000 to the petitioner for furnishing his written reply that why his absence (w.e.f. 30.12.1998 to 31.4.1999) not be allowed without payment and for this action, he may not be dismissed from his services under Rule 4 (1) (a) (i) of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. Against the show cause notice dated 8.2.2000, the petitioner submitted his reply before the respondent no. 5, which came for consideration on 28.2.2000 and the respondent no. 5 passed the order without application of mind and dismissed the petitioner from service under the aforesaid Rules. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order dated 28.2.2000 before the respondent no. 4 which was also dismissed on 15.3.2001 by the respondent no. 4. The petitioner approached the respondent no. 3 by filing revision, which came up for consideration on 30.4.2002 and the same was rejected on the ground of barred by limitation for a period of 10 months. The petitioner filed revision/representation on 26.8.2002 before the respondent no. 2 through registered post, which is still pending consideration.
The petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 3255 of 2005-Pandhari Saroj Vs. State of U.P. and others before this Court, which was dismissed on 1.1.2008 on the ground of 'alternative remedy.' Thereafter the petitioner filed recall application, which was also rejected on 17.2.2009. The petitioner filed a Claim Petition No. 1239 of 2010, which was also rejected on the point of 'barred by limitation' by the respondent no. 6. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22273 of 2011-Pandhari Saroj Vs. State of U.P. and others, wherein this Court quashed the order dated 2.7.2010 and directed the respondent no. 6 to revive the claim petition and decide it on merits in accordance with law. The petitioner submitted a Claim Petition No. 1239 of 2010 before the respondent no. 6, which was dismissed on 12.12.2013 by the respondent no. 6 on merits.
Hence the instant writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Mirza Barkat Ali Vs. Inspector General of Police Insurance Corporation, Allahabad, 2002 (2) UPLBEC 1871 and also a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Giriraj Sharma, AIR 1994 (SC) 215.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has repeatedly urged before this Court only about the harshness, excessive and disproportionate quantum of punishment imposed upon the petitioner.
It is for the disciplinary authority to pass an appropriate punishment on the nature of the wrong committed by an employee.
The petitioner did not inform the senior police authorities about his absence and even he did not file any medical certificate to prove his illness. The petitioner could not point out even an iota of prejudice which could have proved the prejudice caused towards him. The records reveal that the petitioner was absent for 13 times, totally 578 days without prior permission/leave and was punished 15 times by minor penalties and with three censure entries. Even in the year 1989-90 and 1996-97 he was awarded adverse annual remarks and in the year 1999 one increment of the pay was withheld. This callous and defiant approach of the petitioner is totally unsuitable in the police force. Discipline and adherence to the obedience is of paramount importance in a disciplined force like Uttar Pradesh Police.
The conduct of the petitioner is unsuitable to these moral principles as described herein above and which does not generate any sympathy. In an organized force, orientation and sincerity towards duty is the very soul of the service. The incorrigible behaviour of the petitioner devoids him of any sympathetic consideration.
It is evident that instead of serving the summons; petitioner preferred to proceed home in the district Mirzapur and later on took the feeble alibi of contracting cold and then he procured the medical certificate and U.P.C. as an eyewash.
In the theory of the punishment, one of the main ingredient is to set an example so that others may not muster courage to follow the same suit as well as to send the chill down the spine of the like minded errant and defiant people.
For the reasons stated aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the writ petition and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.4.2016
Rmk.
(Prabhat Chandra Tripathi,J.) (Tarun Agarwala,J.)
