Naveen Kumar And Another vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 5655 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Court No. - 33
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2238 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Naveen Kumar And Another
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Irfan Ahmad Malik,Ajay Shankar,Raghuvansh Chandra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

1. Heard Sri Ajay Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Neetu Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner assails the impugned order dated 21.07.2018 passed by the respondent no. 4 as well as the order dated 08.06.2018 passed by the respondent no. 3 and the order dated 25.10.2018 passed by the respondent no. 2 as a consequence the initial order passed against the petitioner for imposing a fine equivalent to 30 day's salary has been affirmed in departmental proceedings.

3. The petitioner also claims a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent-authorities not to give effect to the punishment order in view of the forthcoming promotion of the petitioner to next higher post and also to pay the arrears of the salary which has been deducted in pursuance of the impugned order.

4. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent-authorities have not appreciated the stand taken by the petitioner in his defence and despite having pleaded the same in his reply to the show cause notice which was served on the petitioner yet without considering the explanation the impugned order dated 27.01.2018 has been passed which indicates that it is bereft of any reasons and for the same reason it cannot withstand judicial scrutiny. It is also urged that this aspect of the matter escaped the attention of the Appellate and the Revisional Authority who have affirmed the order dated 27.01.2018, as a result, the petitioner has been subjected to grave prejudice, accordingly, the petition deserves to be allowed.

5. Elaborating his submissions, it is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on 27.11.2017 while the petitioners were discharging their duties being working under the Dial 100 Call Center and attached with a PCR bearing No. UP 32 PG 2990 at around 02:00 PM, a complaint was received from a caller namely Ms. Shabnam alleging that she was going to Delhi and on the way three persons accosted and robbed her.

6. Taking note of the aforesaid complaint, the petitioners traced the location of the complainant and reached the site. They met the complainant and thereafter as both the warring sides had entered in a compromise, the petitioners informed the same to the Call Center of Dial 100. It is subsequently that the complainant had lodged an First Information Report and she also levelled allegations and charges against the petitioners. Later, the complainant give a statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. to indicate that she had wrongly implicated the petitioners and there was no cause for complaint.

7. It is in the aforesaid backdrop, it is urged that the petitioners were issued a show cause notice dated 27th November, 2017 on the premise that the petitioners had gone to attend the complaint and though there was a major incident yet it was not informed to the Police Station concerned i.e. P.S. Garh Mukteshwar which was indicative of negligence and this was also confirmed in a preliminary inquiry report dated 12.11.2017. In response to the aforesaid show cause notice, the petitioner had submitted his reply, a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure No.7 with the petition.

8. It is urged that without taking note of the reply submitted by the petitioners, the impugned orders have been passed and the same has been mechanically affirmed by the Appellate and the Revisional Authority.

9. The learned Standing Counsel while opposing the aforesaid submissions has pointed out that it is the case of the petitioners that they did not inform the P.S. Garh Mukteshwar of the incident and in respect of the complaint, the petitioners had gone to attend. It is further urged that since the petitioners belong to a discipline force and they are responsible to maintain law and order it cannot be diluted merely because they are working with Dial 100 Call Center. For the aforesaid reasons, the order impugned has been passed after considering the explanation furnished by the petitioners and as such it cannot be said that the impugned order has been passed without noticing the facts and circumstances.

10. It is urged that a minor punishment has been imposed which has been affirmed by the Appellate and the Revisional Authority and for the said reason in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the impugned orders are not liable to be interfered with and as such the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

11. The Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the material on record.

12. This Court finds that in so far as the alleged incident dated 09.05.2017 is concerned, there is no dispute between the contesting parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the aforesaid fact that though the petitioners had gone at the site to verify and resolve the complaint but nevertheless they did not inform the Police Station Garh Mukteshwar of the aforesaid incident.

13. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of the Guidelines issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Human Affairs under the Nationwide Emergency Response System, the petitioners were not required to inform the Police Station concerned rather they were required to inform the Dial 100 Call Center which the petitioners had done and as admitted to the respondents and therefore they cannot be held to be guilty of any negligence in performing their duties.

14. Considering the aforesaid plea, this Court finds that the petitioners had submitted their reply in pursuance of the show cause notice and from the perusal thereof, it indicates that the petitioners had not taken any such plea rather the petitioners in their reply to the show cause notice have tried to justify that the complainant herself had made the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that no such incident had occurred and the allegation that she had made against the petitioners were also not correct. Taking note of the aforesaid stand as well as the from the reply to the show cause, it is clear that the petitioner has not taken the plea regarding the contention that the petitioners were not required to inform the Police Station concerned rather was to inform Dial 100 Call Center. Since the aforesaid plea was not raised, this Court is not inclined to entertain the same for the first time in the writ petition. Even otherwise, nothing has been brought on record to indicate that there was no requirement for the petitioners not to inform the police station concerned.

15. On the contrary, if the reply to the show cause as filed by the petitioners as Annexure No. 7 is seen, it only indicates that the petitioner has taken a plea that the petitioner had no motive nor were to gain by not informing the police station concerned rather the plea is that even previously, they had just informed the Dial 100 Call Center and not the police station concerned and thus no motive or negligence can be attached to the petitioners and at best it can be treated as a human error.

16. Taking note of the aforesaid, the Court finds that this reply has been considered by the Authorities and taking an overall view, the impugned order dated 27.01.2018 has been passed and subsequently, the appeal and the revision has been dismissed.

17. From the perusal of the impugned order, it will also reveal that the reply of the petitioners to the show cause notice did not find favour with the Authorities and being the members of the Disciplined Uniformed Force, it cannot be said that the Authorities have acted in a manner which is grossly prejudicial to the petitioners persuading this Court to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with this Court.

18. Even otherwise, this Court is reminded of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Gangaraj; AIR 2020 AIR Online 201 wherein the Apex Court after taking note of the previous decisions regarding the scope of interference in departmental inquiries under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as also taking note of the earlier decisions of Union of India Vs. P.Gunasekaran; (2015) 2 SCC 610 wherein the Apex Court held as under:-

"13. In another judgment reported as Union of India v. P.Gunasekaran, this Court held that while reappreciating evidence the High Court cannot act as an appellate Authority in the disciplinary proceedings. The Court held the parameters as to when the High Court shall not interfere in the disciplinary proceedings.

"13. Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:

(i) re-appreciate the evidence;

(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;

(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;

(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;

(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based.

(vi) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience."

19. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds that the Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence or interfere with the conclusion of the inquiries which has been conducted in accordance with law nor can it go into the proportionality of the punishment unless it shocks its conscience.

20. In the instant case, it is not the case of the petitioner that the inquiry has been held de-hors the rules or in violation of the principles of natural justice and the attempt of the learned counsel for the petitioner to persuade this Court to enter into the factual arena and re-appreciate the evidence as well as adjudge the proportionality of the punishment, as already noticed above is not open for this Court to treat unless any perversity or accentuated circumstances are pointed out which is not the case here, hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere.

21. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

Order Date :- 21.02.2023

Asheesh