Allahabad High Court
Avnishwar Chandra Srivastava vs State Of U.P.Thru.Chief Secy. ... on 12 March, 2021
Bench: Sangeeta Chandra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 6
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 6296 of 2021
Petitioner :- Avnishwar Chandra Srivastava
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Chief Secy. Civil Sectt. Lko. & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Suneel Kumar Singh Kalhan,Richa Srivastava,Shikha Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
This petition has been filed by the petitioner who is PPS Officer and currently posted as Dy. Superintendent of Police, Special Task Force, Lucknow, challenging the order dated 10.11.2020 issued by the Opposite party no.2 and also the Office order dated 10.01.2020 with a further prayer not to adopt any coercive measures against the petitioner in pursuance of the letter and the Government order.
I have heard Dr. Shikha Srivastava, appearing for the petitioner and Shri P.K. SIngh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel who has raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the petition as the impugned order dated 10.11.2020 Annexure-1 has been issued by the Government only giving a direction to the Director General, CBCID, U.P., Lucknow, to lodge an F.I.R. against the petitioner and also by the Second order of the same date (Annexure-2) disciplinary proceedings have been initiated with the Enquiry Officer being appointed.
It has been submitted that the writ petition is premature.
Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand, states that by the orders impugned definite findings have been recorded against him which shall prejudice his case in the disciplinary proceedings as also before the Investigating Officer, if the F.I.R. is lodged against him on the basis thereof.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of U.P. & Others decided on 12.11.2013 passed in Writ Petition (Criminal) No.68 of 2008 and paragraph 111 thereof, wherein the Court had issued directions that registration of F.I.R. is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if information discloses commission of cognizable offence and in case the information received by the Police does not disclose the cognizable offence, a preliminary enquiry may be conducted. If the Enquiry discloses commission of cognizable offence then the F.I.R. must be registered, and a Police Officer cannot avoid his duty for registering the F.I.R. If cognizable offence is disclosed and action should be taken against those officers who do not register the F.I.R. though information received by them, discloses a cognizable offence.
This Court finds that the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not help the petitioner at all.
The writ petition is premature and is dismissed as such. In so far as the Prayer no.1 relating to Annexure-1 is concerned. With regard to the second prayer made for quashing of Annexure-2 initiating the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, this Court finds no good ground to show interference at this stage, as the order impugned shows that a preliminary enquiry was held in the matter and a report submitted on the basis of which the Appointing Authority has come to the conclusion that the Regular Disciplinary Enquiry under Rule 7 of the Disciplinary and Appeal Rules 1999 be conducted against the petitioner and has also appointed an Enquiry Officer. The petitioner is directed to comply with any directions issued by the Enquiry Officer and submit his reply to the Charge-sheet, if any, given to him as per law.
It shall be open for the petitioner to raise the contention raised by him that filing of a charge-sheet against a criminal is not an offence in law nor an offence under the Government Servant Rules 1956, before the Competent Officer.
Order Date :- 12.3.2021
PAL
