Allahabad High Court
Vidya Sagar Verma vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief ... on 6 February, 2023
Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Subhash Vidyarthi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Court No. - 1
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 32 of 2023
Appellant :- Vidya Sagar Verma
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Charitra Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, J.
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.
1. Heard Shri Ram Charitra Pandey, the learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri Anil Kumar Singh Visen, the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.
2. The instant special appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.01.2023 passed by an Hon'ble Single Judge, dismissing Writ A No.680 of 2023, which was filed by the appellant challenging the validity of a show cause notice dated 16.01.2023 issued to him in furtherance of a report submitted in a departmental inquiry.
3. A charge sheet was issued to the writ petitioner and an inquiry was held. The writ petitioner had participated in the inquiry. After conclusion of the disciplinary inquiry, a show cause notice was issued to the writ petitioner giving him an opportunity to show cause as to why the punishment of reverting him to the minimum pay scale for three years be not imposed upon him.
4. While assailing the show cause notice, the learned Counsel for the appellant/petitioner has submitted that the show cause notice has been issued in violation of the provisions contained in paragraph no. 492 of the Police Regulations, which provides as follows :-
"Whenever a police officer has been Judicially tried, the Superintendent must await the decision of the judicial appeal, if any, before deciding whether further departmental action is necessary."
5. When we inquired from the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner as to whether the writ petitioner is being 'judicially tried', he could not point out that any trial is pending against the petitioner before any judicial authority, which involves adjudication of the same charges, on which the disciplinary proceedings are going on. Therefore, paragraph no.492 of the Police Regulations is not applicable in the present case.
6. The learned Counsel for the writ petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Kedar Nath Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & others, 2005 (3) ESC 1955, wherein the writ petitioner had been acquitted after trial in a Criminal Court and yet the disciplinary authority had proceeded with the disciplinary proceedings and held the writ petitioner guilty of the same charges, from which he had been acquitted by the Criminal Court.
7. The aforesaid decision is of no help to the writ petitioner as the writ petitioner is not being tried in any Criminal Court, what to say of his having been acquitted of the charges by the Criminal Court.
8. Therefore, we do not find any illegality in the show cause notice, under challenge warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
9. The special appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 06.02.2023
Anand Sri./-
