Ram Gulam Yadav vs State Of U.P. And Another
2018 Latest Caselaw 1870 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

A.F.R.
 
Court No. - 31
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 65328 of 2010
 

 
Petitioner :- Ram Gulam Yadav
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vachasva Bajpai,Ankur Tandon
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C. S. C.
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi,J.

The petitioner is a constable in U.P. Police, who, by means of the present writ petition has prayed to issue writ of certiorari for quashing three orders i.e. the order dated 4.3.2010 passed by the Superintendent of Police (Establishment), C.B.C.I.D. Head Quarter, U.P., Lucknow, the order dated 2.6.2010 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, C.B.C.I.D., U.P., Lucknow in appeal against the impugned order, and the order dated 30.8.2010 passed by the Inspector General of Police, C.B.C.I.D., Lucknow, in revision against the order of appellate authority.

Affidavits have been exchanged between the parties.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel representing all the respondents. Perused the record.

According to the facts as stated in the petition, the petitioner was working as a police constable in U.P. Police, when he received a show cause notice dated 11.9.2009 issued by Superintendent of Police (Establishment), mentioning therein that in the preliminary enquiry, and departmental proceedings the charges against him have been found proved, therefore, he was directed to show cause as to why he should not be demoted to a lower pay-scale for 3 years. The charges against the petitioner were that he had demanded illegal gratification from one Ramesh Chandra Agrawal and Ravi Agarwal representing himself as an Inspector. One more allegation against the petitioner was that he left the station of his posting (Muzaffar Nagar) and went to Bareilly without having any permission from his senior to leave the station.

Prior to the issuance of the show cause notice, a preliminary enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer held the petitioner guilty under section 4(1)(a)(iii) of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as Rules 1991). After receiving the show cause notice, the petitioner filed his detailed reply on 23.9.2009 explaining all the facts but the order of punishment was passed against him on 4.3.2010 by the respondent no. 4, Superintendent of Police (Establishment), C.B.C.I.D. Head Quarter, U.P., Lucknow, placing him at the lowest pay scale for three years.

Being aggrieved by the order dated 4.3.2010 the petitioner filed an appeal before the respondent no. 3, Deputy Inspector General of Police, C.B.C.I.D., Lucknow, and according to the petitioner the respondent no. 3 too, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case dismissed the petitioner's appeal vide order dated 2.6.2010. The petitioner challenged the orders of appellate authority by means of a revision before the respondent no. 2, Inspector General of Police, C.B.C.I.D., Lucknow, against the order of the appellate authority dated 2.6.2010, which was also dismissed by the revisional authority vide order dated 30.8.2010. Thereafter the petitioner filed a mercy petition with prayer to consider his case sympathetically, but his prayer was not considered and later on the mercy petition was returned by the respondent no. 2 to the petitioner vide order dated 1.10.2010.

Now the petitioner is before this court by means of the present writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the impugned orders have been passed by the concerned authorities without any evidence and material on record and only on the basis of suspicion and hearsay evidence. It is vehemently contended that the order of punishment dated 4.3.2010, has been passed relying only on the preliminary enquiry report, no regular departmental enquiry was ever conducted before passing the impugned order of punishment, whereas the punishment awarded to the petitioner, being a major punishment, a regular departmental enquiry was a must, before awarding the same.

Per contra, learned Standing counsel has opposed the petition by contending that seeing the misconduct of the petitioner, the police department has rightly punished him. The impugned orders have been passed after giving him notice and after receiving of his reply. There is nothing to interfere in any of the impugned orders.

Considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that the petitioner has been punished after a preliminary enquiry in which the petitioner was found prima-facie guilty and he has been punished in accordance with the Rules 4(1)(a)(iii) of Rules 1991. However, nowhere in the counter affidavit it has been stated that any regular departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner.

Rule 4 of U.P. Police Officer of subordinate Ranks (Punishment and appeal) Rules, 1991 provides as under:-

4. Punishment:-(1) The following punishment may, for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided, be imposed upon a Police Officer, namely-

(a) Major Penalties-

(i) Dismissal from service.

(ii) Removal from service.

(iii) Reduction in rank including reduction to a lower-scale or to a lower stage in a time scale.

(b) Minor Penalties-

(i) Withholding of promotion.

(ii) Fine not exceeding one months' pay.

(iii) Withholding of increment, including stoppage at an efficiency bar.

(iv) Censure.

In the present case, the penalty of reduction to a lower pay scale for 3 years, has been awarded to the petitioner. The punishment of reduction to a lower pay-scale, being a major penalty, it was necessary for the respondents to conduct a regular departmental enquiry against him before awarding him a major penalty.

Sub Rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Rules 1991 provides as under:-

5. Procedure for award of punishment.-(1) The cases in which major punishments enumerated in Clause (a) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 may be awarded, shall be dealt with in accordance with the procedure laid down in sub-rule (1) of Rule 14.

Sub-rule (1) of Rule 14 of the Rules 1991 postulates as under:-

14. 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 the Police Officers, may be conducted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Appendix I.

Appendix I of the Rules 1991 provides as under:-

"PROCEDURE RELATING TO THE CONDUCT OF DEPARTMENTAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST POLICE OFFICER

[See RULE 14(1)]

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-1 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."

Thus a definite and clear procedure has been provided under the Rules 1991 for regulating the departmental proceedings and punishments for police officers of the subordinate Ranks of U.P. Police. The petitioner being a constable in U.P. Police could not have been awarded the major penalty without adhering to these rules, whereas the record in this case shows that no chargesheet was ever served on the petitioner, no witnesses were examined and only on the basis of a preliminary enquiry, (which is evident from perusal of the notice dated 11.9.2009 itself, copy whereof has been filed by the petitioner as Annexure no. 1) the petitioner has been punished.

Though in the impugned order dated 30.8.2010 passed by Inspector General of Police/respondent no. 2, it is mentioned that the petitioner has been punished after departmental proceedings but there is no mention in it as to what departmental proceedings were conducted, against the petitioner.

A show cause notice issued by the department cannot take place of a chargesheet. The petitioner could not get the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses to enable him to prove his innocence. Had any departmental enquiry been actually conducted against the petitioner as stated in para 11 of the counter affidavit, its details e.g. enquiry no. etc. would have been mentioned in the counter affidavit alongwith its copies as annexures. In absence of any such evidence about a departmental enquiry, it can not be said that a proper procedure as prescribed in Rules 1991, was adopted by the U.P. Police Department.

In view of the above, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 4.3.2010, 2.6.2010 and 30.8.2010 are hereby quashed.

Order Date :- 7.8.2018

Pcl