Allahabad High Court
Mahadeo Patel vs The State Of U.P.Through Prin. ... on 24 March, 2023
Bench: Irshad Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Reserved on: 26.09.2022 Delivered on: 24.03.2023
Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2135 of 2000
Petitioner :- Mahadeo Patel
Respondent :- The State Of U.P.Through Prin. Secy. Home And 4 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.
1. Heard Sri Anurag Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.K. Gupta, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent - State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 31.01.2000 & 27.04.2000 whereby service of the petitioner has been dismissed with a further prayer to quash the charge memo dated 13.03.2000, finding dated 19.04.2000 and show cause notice dated 19.04.2000, order dated 29.06.1993, letter dated 26.05.1993, order dated 19.06.1993 and order dated 21.07.1993 contained as Annexures- 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, & 13.
3. A further prayer has also been made in the writ petition for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to treat the petitioner in service as Head Constable, Dog Squad of Crime Branch, Criminal Investigation Department, U.P. and to pay salary to him along with other allowances with arrears pending since July, 1993 along with compound interest of 24% per annum and to pay him post retiral dues.
3. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as under:
Sr. No.
Relevant Facts of the Case
a.
On 01.02.1965, the petitioner was appointed as Constable of District Executive Force in Dog Squad of Crime Branch, Criminal Investigation Department, U.P., Lucknow.
b.
In the month of April, 1982, he was promoted on the post of Head Constable, Dog Squad.
c.
On 26.05.1993, respondent No.5 sent a letter to the Superintendent of Police (Karmik), U.P. Police Headquarter, Allahabad for issuance of orders of repatriation of the petitioner to District Executive Force, Allahabad.
d.
On 19.06.1993, the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Karmik), U.P. Police Headquarters, Allahabad issued an order in pursuance of the directions issued by respondent No.5, whereby the petitioner was repatriated to Dog Squad, Crime Branch, CID, U.P. Lucknow to Allahabad.
e.
On 29.06.1993, the petitioner was relieved to join at Allahabad.
f.
On 14.07.1993, the petitioner wrote a letter to Superintendent of Police, In-charge Dog Squad, Crime Branch, CID, U.P, Lucknow stating that he has filed Writ Petition No.493 (S/S) of 1993, wherein an undertaking was furnished by the respondents on 06.07.1993 that the petitioner will be posted in Crime Branch, CID at Allahabad and will not be posted in District Police Force, therefore, he requested that appropriate corrected order may be passed for his posting in compliance of the aforesaid order.
g.
Vide letter dated 17.07.1993, direction was issued to respondent No.5 to retain the petitioner in service as Head Constable of Dog Squad, Crime Branch, CID, U.P. Lucknow.
h.
On 31.01.2000, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner.
i.
On 13.03.2000, a memo of charges was issued to the petitioner.
j.
On 19.04.2000, findings were recorded and a show cause notice was issued against the petitioner regarding his dismissal from service and deprivation of pay and allowances for the period of alleged absence from service.
k.
Hence, the present writ petition.
4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been recruited directly to the Dog Squad of Crime Branch, CID, U.P. Lucknow and not in Civil Police of District Executive Force / District Police Force of Allahabad, therefore, he was not liable to be repatriated.
5. He further submitted that even if the case of the respondents is admitted on its face value, once the petitioner has been brought on deputation to the Dog Squad of Crime Branch, CID, U.P. Lucknow, after end of his lien and having been promoted as Head Constable of Dog Squad, he cannot be repatriated to Department of Civil Police at Allahabad.
6. He next submitted that the petitioner has not tendered his joining in District Police, Allahabad, therefore, the disciplinary proceeding initiated against him on the alleged charges is illegal and arbitrary and is liable to be quashed by this Hon'ble Court.
7. He further submitted that the respondents have not complied with the undertaking furnished before this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition No.493 (S/S) of 1993, wherein an undertaking was furnished by the respondents on 06.07.1993 that the petitioner will be posted in Crime Branch, CID at Allahabad and will not be posted in District Police Force. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance upon a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K.V. Janki Raman; AIR 1991 Page 2010.
8. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner was transferred at District Allahabad in pursuance of order dated 19.06.1993 and was relieved for the same purpose, however, he has not tendered his joining at Police Line, Allahabad in compliance of the aforesaid order. It has also been submitted that the petitioner has neither taken leave nor joined his duties in the police line. Therefore, disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him.
9. He next submitted that the petitioner remained unofficially absent from duties w.e.f. 29.06.1993, therefore, his service was suspended in consonance with the principles of 'no work, no pay' and his absence from duties were treated to be without pay, therefore, he is not entitled for any pay or allowances for the aforesaid period.
10. He further submitted that in compliance of order dated 19.06.1993 passed by Police Headquarter, Allahabad after being relieved from District Lucknow on 29.06.1993 for joining at District Allahabad, the petitioner remained unofficially absent from duties, therefore, the impugned order dated 27.04.2000 has been passed against the petitioner after following the due procedure.
11. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned order dated 27.04.2000 has rightly been passed against the petitioner and there is no illegality or infirmity in the same.
12. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
13. After going through the material available on record, it is apparent that the petitioner was recruited to the Dog Squad of Crime Branch, CID, U.P. Lucknow and not in Civil Police of District Executive Force / District Police Force of Allahabad. It is also reflected that the petitioner went unofficially absent from duties, which amounts to gross misconduct, however, it appeared to the Court that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner was shockingly disproportionate to the charges held proved against the delinquent employee and by imposing such grossly disproportionate punishment on the petitioner, the respondents had tried to kill the fly with a sledge hammer.
14. In the case in hand, the petitioner was dismissed from service vide impugned order dated 27.04.2000, whereas his service would have come to an end on 30.04.2000. It is admitted case of the parties that the petitioner remained in service for a long spell of time and served the Government, therefore, looking to the disproportion of the punishment imposed upon the petitioner as well as considering the proved misconduct of the petitioner, this Court finds that the impugned order dated 27.04.2000 is liable to be quashed and it is hereby quashed.
15. The writ petition succeeds and is partly allowed.
16. However, the respondents are directed to pay applicable allowances and dues to the petitioner by treating him to be in service on the post of Head Constable, Dog Squad of Crime Branch, Criminal Investigation Department, U.P., Lucknow including arrears of salary in accordance with rules within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
17. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 24.03.2023
Adarsh K Singh
