Allahabad High Court
Vijendra Singh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Ors. on 24 May, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:94289
RESERVED
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
***
WRIT - A NO. 17864 OF 2015
Vijendra Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ....Respondents
Appearance :-
For Petitioner : Mr. Mohd. Umar Khan, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. Girijesh Kumar Tripathi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel
HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.
This writ petition is directed against an order of the Superintendent of Police, Firozabad1 dated 23.10.2013, awarding a censure entry to the petitioner in exercise of powers under Rule 14(2) read with Rule 4(b)(iv) of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal Rules, 19912. Also under challenge are orders dated 31.12.2013 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Agra Range, Agra3, rejecting the petitioner's appeal against the SP's order and that made by the Inspector General of Police, Agra Zone, Agra4 dated 29.03.2014, affirming the orders of the SP and the DIG in revision.
2. A notice of motion was issued on 02.04.2015, in response to which, a counter affidavit was filed on 13.07.2015. A rejoinder was filed by the petitioner on 18.04.2019. The parties having exchanged affidavits, the petition was admitted to hearing on 14.12.2023, which proceeded forthwith. Judgment was reserved.
3. Heard Mr. Mohammad Umar Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Girijesh Kumar Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
4. The facts as set out in the impugned order passed by the SP are that on 19.07.2013, at 18:30 hours, one Rafiq Chauhan, Sub-Inspector of Police, then posted as the Chowki Incharge, Railway Road, Police Station South, District Firozabad, along with his companion policemen, caught four men in possession of charas, a narcotic. These men are said to have been gambling in a public place. They were arrested and separate crime numbers, being Case Crime Nos. 465 to 471, all of 2013, under Section 18/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and Section 13 of The Public Gambling Act, 1867 apparently related to Police Station South, District Firozabad registered against them. The SP has not even taken care to mention the police station where the crime was registered, leaving this Court to draw that inference on the foot of the fact that the Sub-Inspector must have apprehended the offenders within the local limits of the police station, where he was posted. During the course of interrogation, one of these accused, Riyazuddin alias Raju said that the gambling trade flourishes within the knowledge of Constable Driver Shiv Kumar, Constable No. 676 of Civil Police, Suraj Singh and Constable No. 692 of Civil Police, Vijendra Singh, the petitioner.
5. Some kind of a preliminary inquiry was held into the matter by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Firozabad5, who has mechanically repeated and endorsed the statement of Rafiq Chauhan, Chowki Incharge, who had arrested the fourth accused, endorsed by Rajesh Chaudhary, the Circle Officer6. All that is said through the long chain of hearsay that one of the four accused said that the gambling flourishes in the knowledge of the petitioner, besides the other two constables. It is pleaded that the Inquiry Officer, to whom whatever kind of inquiry was entrusted by the SP, did not himself record the statement of any of the accused, including Riyazuddin alias Raju.
6. The SP has accepted the inquiry report dated 13.08.2013 submitted by the Addl. SP and issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner dated 04.09.2013 under Rule 14(2) read with Rule 4(b)(iv) of the Rules of 1991. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show-cause notice, refuting the case alleged against him on 18.09.2013. It is averred in paragraph No. 13 that the accused challaned in the case, Riyazuddin, is said to have stated during investigation that Constable Driver Ranvir Singh receives a sum of ₹20,000 and the Inspector Incharge, a sum of ₹2000 per month, apparently for turning a blind eye to the gambling trade, but in the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer has not recorded the statement of the accused. It is also averred in paragraph No. 14 of the writ petition that the Inspector Incharge has misguided higher officials on the basis of wrong information to save his own skin and shift blame to the petitioner, a police constable. The case also is that without due application of mind to the facts and evidence appearing against the petitioner, the SP, also without considering the petitioner's reply, has awarded a censure entry by the impugned order. The DIG has rejected the appeal without considering relevant material, and so has the IG the petitioner's revision under Rule 23 of the Rules of 1991.
7. It is the petitioner's case pleaded in paragraph No. 26 that a notarized affidavit was given by the accused Riyazuddin to the SP on 29.08.2013, saying that he had never given a statement against the petitioner or the other policemen, after he was arrested on 19.07.2013. It is said in the affidavit by Riyazuddin alias Raju that the CO and the other policemen arrested him from his house and booked him in a false case of gambling, after taking him to the police station. It is also said by the accused that he did not even know the three police constables against whom it is said that he made a statement.
8. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents by a Deputy Superintendent of Police posted at Firozabad, it is said that action against the petitioner is based on the report of the Addl. SP, where he recorded statement of witnesses and acted on documentary evidence. The show-cause notice was issued on the basis of the said report. These averments find place in paragraph No. 7 of the counter affidavit. In paragraph No. 8 also, it is stated that on 16.07.2013, a notice had been issued by the Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali South, Firozabad to all Chowki Incharges, Sub-Inspectors, Head Constables and Constables that if within their beat, anyone is caught by the SHO or higher officials, gambling in a public place, it will be presumed that the Sub-Inspector or the Constable, within whose halka or beat, the offence happens is involved in permitting it to flourish and involved in it. The impugned appellate and revisional orders have also been supported. In the rejoinder affidavit, the stand taken is that without any credible evidence, the orders impugned have been passed.
9. Upon hearing learned Counsel for parties and perusing the record, this Court finds that the inquiry report submitted by the Addl. SP and the impugned order passed by the SP ex facie show that these proceed on the basis of utter hearsay and with no material to award the censure entry. The entire edifice of the censure entry is the statement of one of the four accused, who were arrested by the police allegedly in a case of NDPS and gambling in a public place. One of the arrested accused, Riyazuddin is said to have revealed during investigation immediately after arrest to the Chowki Incharge, and then the SHO and the CO that gambling trade flourishes within the knowledge of the petitioner, besides the two other constables. The said statement, even if taken down during investigation by the Investigating Officer, is, by itself, not relevant material. Once it comes to departmental proceedings, even one to award a censure, a minor penalty, there has to be material that is relevant. Relevant material would mean that the Inquiry Officer would have taken down the statement of Riyazuddin, the one who was attributed to have blamed the petitioner and the two other constables.
10. A perusal of the inquiry report submitted by the Addl. SP does not show that he ever called the accused Riyazuddin and heard the allegation substantiated from the horse's mouth. Before the SP, an affidavit was filed by Riyazuddin, duly notarized, categorically denying the allegation. Rather, he said that he did not even know the three policemen. He never made the allegation, which is said to be material, on the basis of which, the impugned order has been passed. The affidavit was ignored by the SP, calling it a "Shikayati Prarthana Patra" dated 29.08.2013 written on a stamp paper worth ₹10, which too was inquired into by Rajesh Chaudhary, CO, City Firozabad. It has been recorded that Riyazuddin was called by the CO to have his statement recorded during inquiry on 11.10.2022, but he did not appear. Now, it has been noted that the inquiry in the matter was conducted by the Addl. SP, who submitted his report on 13.08.2013. One of the witnesses, whose statement he took down, was Rajesh Chaudhary. The affidavit is one dated 29.08.2013 and filed before the SP. By that time, the Addl. SP had already submitted his inquiry report. Therefore, there was no occasion for Rajesh Chaudhary, who was himself one of the witnesses who appeared before the Addl. SP during the summary inquiry of whatever kind held, to have examined the veracity of the affidavit that was filed before the SP.
11. It is not difficult to imagine that in the circumstances where supervising officers of the Police were after three constables to put blame on their shoulders for the flourishing gambling trade, as they say, the witness who had been attributed making the statement against the petitioner would never have appeared before the CO. This is particularly so as Riyazuddin, the witness had already been arrested in a case of NDPS and gambling from a public place, about which, his version is that he was picked up from home. It is almost impossible to expect a man circumstanced as Riyazuddin going to testify before the CO, who had already acted as a witness against the petitioner, that the CO was wrong and Riyazuddin had never told the CO or other police officials that the petitioner was involved. It would be almost unnatural to expect of Riyazudding to verify the contents of his affidavit in an inquiry to be held by CO Rajesh Chaudhary. This expectation shows a very insensitive approach by all the three officials - the SP, the DIG and the IG who dealt with this matter. In fact, it was the duty of the SP, before whom the affidavit was filed by Riyazuddin, to have called him to testify before himself. This was so because the SP was not an officer who was involved with the operation of Riyazuddin's arrest in the NDPS and gambling cases and after all, the affidavit was filed before the SP, who was the Disciplinary Authority. It was his personal duty to verify the contents of the affidavit.
12. The tendency amongst superior officials of the Police to find it demeaning to undertake their lawful responsibilities and assume airs of higher rank, entrusting important business to their subordinates, cannot be appreciated. The SP, Dr. Rakesh Singh, will bear this in mind for the future that an affidavit filed in an inquiry must be verified by the officer before whom it is submitted by calling and hearing the deponent himself; not by entrusting the responsibility to one or the other of his subordinates. A reading of the impugned order passed by the SP shows that it procceds on the basis of no material. It records findings based on an inquiry, which is entirely founded on utter hearsay. A censure entry might be a minor penalty and no elaborate inquiry may be required under the Rules of 1991, but, it can have debilitating and long-term effects on the career of a police personnel. A police constable is, after all, also a member of the police and it is not that it is the higher officials alone whose honour and good name as public servants is to be vindicated. It applies to everyone at all ranks and levels, including constables.
13. The impugned order does not show that the SP looked into the matter at all to find out the truth. He accepted the allegations supported by a preliminary inquiry report or whatever inquiry it was, in a very nonchalant and mechanical manner. A little bit of sensitivity displayed by him would have taken him to the truth of the matter. The SP is the head of the Police Department in the district. If he had cared to call the witness who had filed the affidavit, it might have been revealed who were the officers actually involved in promoting gambling.
14. This Court must remark that there is a tendency amongst administrative officials, including the Police, to fix responsibility on pawns and foot soldiers to save the higher-ups or the higher-ups than the pawns. Many a vital crime and infraction of duty are lost because the responsibility is fixed on the shoulders of a very small functionary. This Court does not say that in this case, it is the higher officials who were involved. All that we wish to say is that if the SP had probed the matter more discreetly and with more sensitivity and seriousness of business, apart from the fact that he would not have passed a perfunctory and illegal order against the petitioner, he might have discovered important matters relating to the Police Establishment working under him and the crime of gambling, that is said to have been flourishing.
15. On an overall conspectus of the matter, we do not find the impugned order, founded as it is on no material and one that is the outcome of mechanical approach, to be sustainable at all. The appellate and the revisional orders passed by the DIG and the I.G. have ignored all these patent fallacies in proceedings of the inquiry and the order made by the SP. The orders passed by the DIG and the IG in the appeal and revision impugned, for the same reason, also cannot be sustained.
16. In the result, this writ petition succeeds and stands allowed with costs. The impugned order dated 23.10.2013 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Firozabad, the order dated 31.12.2021 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Agra Range, Agra and the order in revision passed by the Inspector General of Police, Agra Zone, Agra dated 29.03.2014 are hereby quashed.
17. An entry of this order shall be made in the petitioner's service book that the orders impugned stand quashed under our orders. The Superintendent of Police, Firozabad is ordered to carry out this order in the petitioner's service book forthwith.
18. The Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the Superintendent of Police, Firozabad, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Agra Range, Agra and the Inspector General of Police, Agra Zone, Agra.
Allahabad
May 24, 2024
I. Batabyal
(J.J. MUNIR, J.)
