Allahabad High Court
Mohammad Ibrar Khan Constable, ... vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 25 March, 2021
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5021 of 2021
Petitioner :- Mohammad Ibrar Khan Constable, Pno No. 950898421
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Atipriya Gautam,Vijay Gautam(Senior Adv.),Vinod Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard Sri Saurabh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
Petitioner is before this Court assailing the order impugned dated 24.05.2019, 17.09.2019 and 06.09.2020 passed by respondent no.4,3 and 2, respectively (Annexure No. 1,2&3 to the writ petition). With a further request commanding the respondent authorities not to withhold the increments or higher grade-pay scale on account of the aforesaid punishment and the same may be considered/provided notwithstanding the aforesaid punishment.
Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submissions has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in Ghanshyam Gaur Vs. State of U.P. and Others (Writ-A No. 52864 of 2010, dt. 14.9.2010) and as such it is sought to be contended that the present matter is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment and the similar treatment may also be extended to the petitioner. The order dated 14.9.2010 is reproduced herein below.
"The petitioner, who is presently posted as Sub-Inspector at Police Station Kotwali Etawah, has sought the quashing of the order dated 4th November, 2008 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kanpur Nagar by which adverse entry has been directed to be entered into his character roll under the provisions of Rule 4(1)(b)(iv) of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules').
It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that not only the allegations made in the impugned order are incorrect but the impugned order also does not consider the reply to the show-cause notice submitted by the petitioner. The appeal filed by the petitioner under Rule 20 of the Rules has also been dismissed by the Appellate Authority without taking into consideration the aforesaid fact. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court rendered in Writ Petition No. 70616 of 2006 (Ramesh Chandra Verma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.) decided on 22nd December, 2006.
Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has, however, defended the order and has submitted that the order does not call for any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
I have considered the submission advanced by learned counsel for the parties.
In Ramesh Chandra Verma (supra) this Court examined the validity of an order passed under the same Rule 4(1)(b)(iv) of the Rules and observed as follows:-
"After respective arguments have been advanced, undisputed factual position which emerges is to the effect that detailed and exhaustive reply to show cause notice, running into five pages, was submitted by petitioner, and while taking final decision in the matter, only this much has been stated in the impugned order that the reply was unsatisfactory, but no reasons have been indicated as to why and in what way and manner it was unsatisfactory, and what else was required to be furnished. The order has been passed in mechanical manner.
Consequently, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Impugned order dated 30.5.2006, as affirmed in appeal by appellate order dated 31.07.2006 is hereby quashed and set aside. Senior Superintendent of Police is directed to pass fresh order, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, after taking into account the reply submitted by petitioner, in accordance with law."
In the present case, it is also the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that though a detailed reply dated 17th June, 2010 was filed by the petitioner in reply to the show-cause notice dated 29th May, 2010 but the impugned order passed by the Superintendent of Police does not refer to the reply submitted by the petitioner and merely mentions that the explanation submitted by the petitioner is not satisfactory.
In view of the aforesaid decision of this Court in Ramesh Chandra Verma (supra), the order dated 4th November, 2008 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kanpur Nagar cannot be sustained. It is, accordingly, set aside. It shall, however, be open to the respondents to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after taking into consideration the reply filed by the petitioner.
The petition is allowed to the extent indicated above."
So far as the factual and legal aspects, the same are not being disputed by learned Standing Counsel.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed in terms of Ghanshyam Gaur(supra). The order impugned dated 24.05.2019, 17.09.2019 and 06.09.2020 are set aside. It shall, however, be open to the respondents to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after taking into consideration the reply filed by the petitioner.
Order Date :- 25.3.2021
A. Pandey
