Allahabad High Court
Deepak Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief. Secy. ... on 21 November, 2024
Author: Alok Mathur
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:77023
Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8927 of 2024
Petitioner :- Deepak Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Deepak Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Deepak Singh, counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents.
2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.04.2024, whereby the departmental proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner after the petitioner having been chargesheeted in a criminal case.
3. It has been submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable P.A.C. in the year on 23.04.2019 and after completion of his training was posted in 10th Battalion P.A.C., Barabanki. During his posting at Barabanki, a First Information Report was lodged against the petitioner in Case Crime No.101 of 2020, under Sections 376, 392, 450, 504, 506 IPC and 3(2)(v) SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Police Station - Maharajganj, District - Raebareli. After conclusion of the investigation, chargesheet has been filed and the trial is pending.
4. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the respondents have taken a decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner for which he was placed under suspension in exercise of power under Uttar Pradesh Police officers of the subordinate rank (punishment and appeal) rules- 1991. In the said departmental proceedings, a show cause notice was given to the petitioner but prior to conclusion of the proceedings, the respondents invoked the provision of Rule 20 of Rule of the U.P. Pradeshik Armed Constabulary Rules, 1948 and dispensed the services of the petitioner by terminating his services by order dated 29.06.2020. The petitioner being aggrieved of the order termination and filed a writ petition before this Court being Writ - A No.29974 of 2021, which was allowed by this Court by means of judgment and order dated 15.07.2022. This Court had while allowing the writ petition had observed that though it was open for the respondents to have dispensed with the service of the petitioner by simple order as he was on probation but instead of passing an order terminating his services by order simplicitor the respondents have proceeded to pass a detailed order, including allegations of the petitioner which indicated that the same was measured of punishment and hence this Court had set side the order dated 29.06.2020 giving liberty to the respondents to pass an appropriate order after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to consider his reply before passing any such order.
5. It seems that it is in compliance of the directions of this Court, whereby previous order of punishment dated 29.06.2020 was set aside by judgment and order dated 15.07.2022 and the impugned order has been passed asking the petitioner to show cause why the services should not be terminated in exercise of power under Rule 14(1) of the Rules of 1991.
6. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order has been passed on the directions of the Court and therefore, it cannot be said to be without jurisdiction illegal or arbitrary. The next point urged by the petitioner is that the grounds for terminating his services are same as the criminal case pending in the court of competent jurisdiction.
7. It is noticed that the respondents have invoked Rule 14(1) of the Rules of 1991 on the ground that a charge sheet has been filed in the Court of competent jurisdiction where the punishment for the said offences is more than 7 years. It is noticed that the respondents were within its competence to have issued such a show cause notice, the show cause notice is for terminating the services of the petitioner on the ground of the fact that a charge sheet has been issued to him in the criminal case where the punishment is merely more than 7 years. It has no relation to the defence being taken by the petitioner with regard to the allegation levelled in the criminal case but the charge is only with regard to the fact that a charge sheet has been filed in the court of competent jurisdiction where criminal trial is pending. Accordingly, grounds raised by the petitioner in assailing the impugned order that the evidence in both the cases is the same cannot be accepted as the charge sheet in the present disciplinary proceeding is only with regard to the petitioner being chargesheeted in the court of competent jurisdiction where he has an accused in a criminal case.
8. Accordingly, for the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit for interference in the chargesheet issued to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition is bereft of merit and is dismissed.
[Alok Mathur,J.]
Order Date :- 21.11.2024
KR
