Allahabad High Court
Constable Dilasa Ram vs State Of U.P. And Others on 27 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:188065
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 54533 of 2004
Constable Dilasa Ram
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Atipriya Gautam, Vinod Kumar Mishra, Shivam Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Court No. - 34
HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
1. Heard Sri Rishabh Kesharwani holding brief of Ms. Atipriya Gautam, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri S.K. Pal, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
2. Since counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and the rival parties have made a statement at bar that they do not propose to file any further affidavit and the writ petition be decided on the basis of the documents available on record. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being decided at the admission stage.
3. The case of the writ petitioner is that the original writ petitioner, Constable Dilasa Ram who was appointed as a Constable on 15.06.1990 was subjected to disciplinary proceedings while issuing of a charge sheet dated 17.02.2003 thereafter, an Inquiry Officer came to be appointed who conducted inquiry proceedings and tendered an inquiry report dated 03.06.2003 while holding the charges to be proved against the writ petitioner.
4. Post submission of inquiry report dated 03.06.2003, a show cause notice accompanied with the inquiry report came to be served upon the writ petitioner and thereafter, the impugned order came to be passed dismissing the writ petitioner from service on 17.07.2003 against which the writ petitioner preferred a departmental appeal which was dismissed on 14.05.2004 by the appellate authority. Thereafter, a revision came to be preferred which came to be dismissed on 11.10.2004
5. Questioning the dismissal, as well as the appellate order and revisional order, the present writ petition has been preferred.
6. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted that the order passed by the disciplinary authority dismissing the writ petitioner from service as well as the order of the appellate authority affirming the dismissal order passed by the disciplinary authority and revisional order cannot be sustained for the simple reason that it was not open and it was not within the domain of the inquiry officer to have recommended a particular punishment which became the basis of passing of the dismissal order. Submission is that it is the prerogative and the discretion of the disciplinary authority and the only task which is assigned to the inquiry officer is to conduct inquiry while coming to a conclusion whether the charges stood proved or not. He seeks to rely upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Uttaranchal Vs. Kharak Singh (2008) 8 SCC 236 and an order passed by Coordinate Bench in Writ-A No. 19952 of 2019 (Mohammad Miyan Vs. State of U.P. and others) decided on 21.08.2025. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the impugned orders cannot be sustained and they are liable to be set aside and the writ petitioners who are the legal heirs of the original petitioner who was a police constable in the U.P. Police Department be granted post retiral benefits which are admissible under the rules as the original writ petitioner stood expired on 04.09.2005.
7. Sri S.K. Pal, learned Additional CSC, on the other hand, submits that looking into the gravity of the charges so sought to be levelled against the writ petitioner an inevitable conclusion would be the ultimate punishment of dismissal, however, according to him, the Inquiry Officer could not have recommended the punishment which became the basis of passing of the impugned order while imposing the punishment which was recommended by the Inquiry Officer.
8. I have heard the submission so made across the bar and perused the record.
9. It is not in dispute that the original writ petitioner, Constable Dilasa Ram was posted as Constable since 15.06.1990 in Civil Police and owing to certain allegations which became the part and parcel of issuance of the charge sheet and conduction of the departmental proceedings, the writ petitioner post issuance of charge sheet dated 17.02.2003 was subjected to disciplinary inquiry and on 03.06.2003, the original writ petitioner was held to be guilty of the charges levelled by the Inquiry Officer in its inquiry report dated 03.06.2003 the relevant extract of the inquiry report recommending the punishment of dismissal is being quoted hereinunder.-
"????? ?????? 153 ?????? ????????? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ????? ????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ?? ????? ?????????? ?? (???? ??? ????) ???????? 1991 ?? ???? 4 ?? ?? ???? (1) ?? ???? '?' ?? ?????? (1) ?? ???????? ?????? ?? ?? ?? ????????? ???? ???? ?? ???????? ?? ???? ???"
10. Post issuance of a show cause notice accompanied with the inquiry report, an ultimate decision was taken by the disciplinary authority, the Superintendent of Police, Fatehgarh, Farrukhabad, respondent no. 2 dismissing the writ petitioner from service, the relevant extract of the dismissal order is being quoted hereinunder.-
"??????? ??? ?????????? ??????????? ???? ??????? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ???? ???????? ?? ???? ?? ?.???. ??????? ?????? ??? ????? ?????????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ???????? 1991 ?? ???? 14 (1) ?? ???????? ??????? ????????? ??????? ??????? ???? ?????? ????, ?????????????? ??????????? ?????? ???????? ?? ???? ??????? ??????? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ??????? ????????? ??? ????? ???? ??? ??????? ?? ???? ??? ???????? ??????? ???????? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? 153 ??.??. ?????? ??? ?? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ??????? ???? ??? ???? ??? ???????? ??????????, ???????, ????????, ???????-????? ??? ?????? ????? ?? ???? ???? ??? ????? ?? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ???? ?? ???? ?????????? ?? ???????? ?????? 3.6.2003 ?? ?????? ?????"
"??? ??????? ??? ????? ???????, ??????? ????? ?????? 153 ??.??. ????????? ?? ???? ?????? ? ???? ???, ??? ???????? ??????? ????????? ?? ????? ?????? ??????? ???? ??? ???? ??? ????????, ????????????, ?????????? ??? ?? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ???????????? ??? ????? ?? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ?? ??????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ????? ???? ????"
11. Against the dismissal order, the original writ petitioner preferred an appeal which came to be rejected on 17.07.2003 against the dismissal order, the writ petitioner preferred an appeal which came to be rejected on 14.05.2004. A revision also came to be preferred which was dismissed on 11.10.2004.
12. As a matter of fact, the service of the original writ petitioner is governed under the provisions of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. Rule 14 reads as under: -
"14(1) Procedure for conducting departmental proceedings- (1) subject to the provisions contained in these rules, the departmental proceedings in the case referred to in sub-rule (1) of rule 5 against to the police officers May be conducted in accordance with the procedure laid down in appendix- I "
13. Appendix -1 pertains to the procedure relating to conduct of departmental proceedings against police officer reads as under:-
"APPENDIX-1
PROCEDURE RELATING TO THE CONDUCT OF
DEPARTMENTAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST POLICE OFFICER
Upon institution of a formal enquiry such police officer against whom the enquiry has been instituted shall be informed in writing of the grounds on which it is proposed to take action and shall be afforded an adequate opportunity of defending himself. The grounds on which it is proposed to take action shall be used in the form of a definite charge or charges as in Form I appended to these Rules which shall be communicated to the charged police officer and which shall be so clear and precise as to give sufficient indication to the charged police officer of the facts and circumstances against him, he shall be required, within a reasonable time, to put in, in a written statement of his defence and to state whether he desires to be heard in person. If he so desires, or if the Inquiry Officer so directs an oral enquiry shall be held in respect of such of the allegation as are not admitted. At that enquiry such oral evidence will be recorded as the Inquiry Officer considers necessary. The charged police officer shall be entitled to cross-examine the witnesses, to give evidence in person and to have such witnesses called as he may wish:
Provided that the Inquiry Officer may for sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing, refuse to call a witness. The proceedings shall contain a sufficient record of the evidence and statement of the findings and the ground thereof. The Inquiry Officer may also separately from these proceedings make his own recommendation regarding the punishment to be imposed on the charged police officer."
14. A close reading of the enquiry report would reveal that the enquiry officer in the zeal of proving the charges against the delinquent employee had exceeded its jurisdiction while proposing punishment, that too by referring to the specific provisions contained under the 1991 Rules, i.e. Rule 4(1)(a)(i). Certainly, the task which has been assigned to the Enquiry Officer is to conduct enquiry proceedings while recording its finding whether the charges are proved or not against the delinquent employee and it is the prerogative and jurisdiction while exercising discretion of the Disciplinary Authority to pass a punishment order if there are variety of punishments provided in the Rules. In State of Uttaranchal vs. Kharak Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: -
"18. ... Though there is no specific bar in offering views by the enquiry officer, in the case on hand, the enquiry officer exceeded his limit by saying that the officer has no right to continue in the government service and he has to be dismissed from service with immediate effect."
15. Further in Mohammad Miyan (supra), a coordinate Bench of this Court has observed as under:-
"14. It is well settled principle of law that when statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, it should be done in that manner alone (Krishna Rai v. Banaras Hindu University and others (2022) 8 SCC 713).
15. In such above view of the matter, the enquiry officer's recommendation of the proposed punishment from dismissal of service as well as denial of salary on principle of 'No Work No Pay' cannot be approved of. The report also deserves to be set aside and so also consequential order of dismissal of the petitioner and so also the order passed by the appellate authority and order of authority sitting in revision also deserve to be set aside."
16. Since the said discrepancy goes to the root of the matter, which vitiates the entire proceedings, thus in the opinion of the Court, it is not justified or justifiable for the enquiry officer to propose punishment in that regard.
17. Since the original writ petitioner stood expired on 04.09.2005 and the said illegality goes to the root of the matter which vitiates the entire proceedings, thus, in the opinion of the Court, it was not justified or justifiable for the Inquiry Officer to purpose punishment in that regard which became the basis of imposition of the penalty.
18. Accordingly, impugned orders dated 17.07.2003 passed by respondent no. 2, Superintendent of Police, Farrukhabad, 14.05.2004 passed by respondent no. 3, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kanpur Range, Kanpur and 11.10.2004 passed by Inspector General of Police, Kanpur Zone, Kanpur are set aside. A mandamus is issued to the respondents, in particular, Superintendent of Police, Farrukhabad to accord post retiral benefits which are admissible and permissible under law to the legal heirs of the deceased after looking into the competing claims, if any, within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of the order bearing in mind the fact that the original writ petitioner stood expired.
19. With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(Vikas Budhwar,J.)
October 27, 2025
Rajesh
