1
Court No. 30
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 39565 of 2007
Bheem Singh Vs. State of U.P and others
******
Hon'ble A.P. Sahi,J.
This writ petition has been filed questioning the orders
passed by the disciplinary authority dated 6.8.1992 and the order
of appellate authority dated 4th May, 2007 whereby the petitioner
who is a Police Constable, has been dismissed from his services on
account of an alleged charge of misbehaviour at 8.15 a.m. on 10th
July, 1991 at the Taxi Stand Crossing of Nehtaur, District Bijnor.
The charge in essence levelled against the petitioner is that
he was in a drunken state and he engaged himself in an altercation,
and upon being intervened by his colleague he misbehaved with
him and indulged in man-handling. The matter was immediately
reported to the Station House Officer, Nethaur by the colleague of
the petitioner, namely Subodh Kumar another constable, and
thereafter a search was made for the petitioner who absconded.
The petitioner was served with a charge sheet. The enquiry
was conducted and thereafter the petitioner was issued a show
cause notice along with a copy of the enquiry report calling upon
him to answer the same. Thereafter the Superintendent of Police
dismissed the petitioner from his services.
Aggrieved the petitioner filed an appeal and after discussing
the issues raised by the petitioner the appeal has also been
dismissed against which present writ petition has been filed.
Sri R.C. Singh relying on the decision in the case of State of
U.P. Vs. Babu Ram Upadhyaya, reported in AIR 1961 Supreme
Court Pg. 751 contends that the incident involved a cognizable
offence and therefore, since no F.I.R. had been lodged or could
have been lodged, the disciplinary proceedings could not have
been initiated for such a conduct keeping in view the provisions of
the Section 7 of the Police Act. In essence his submission is that
the incident indicated the commission of an alleged cognizable
criminal offence and hence the same could not have been
2
proceeded with on the administrative side.
Sri Singh further submitted that the petitioner was not
subjected to any medical test to find out as to whether the
petitioner was under the influence of alcohol and in the absence of
any such material the conclusions drawn by the Enquiry Officer
and by the disciplinary authority are without any basis. He further
submits that on both counts the impugned orders are liable to be
set aside.
Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand contends that
the charges were proved, and in view of the U.P. Subordinate
Police Officers “Punishment and Appeal” Rules, 1991 the
aforesaid contention on behalf of the petitioner cannot be
accepted. It has further been pointed out that against the
punishment order the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the
Insepctor General of Police which had been initially rejected as
time barred against which he filed a claim petition before the
Public Service Tribunal and the same was also dismissed on 19th
July, 1999 against which a writ petition was filed which was
disposed of on 19.9.2006 with a direction that the appeal be
decided by the appellate authority on merits. It has further been
submitted that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing a
Revision under Rule 23 of the 1991 Rules.
The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State is otherwise
sketchy. A rejoinder affidavit to the same has been filed which is
on record. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the records.
The law in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Babu Ram
Upadhyaya (supra) is in relation to the interpretation of the
provisions of the police regulations vis-a-vis Section 7 of the
Police Act 1860. The said decision in noway takes away the
impact of the rules which has been framed now in the year 1991.
The Police Authorities under these rules are entitled to proceed to
award a punishment in the manner prescribed therein in respect of
the misconduct as indicated therein. This power has been
conferred under statutory rules framed by the State Government
and, therefore, to contend that no disciplinary proceedings can be
initiated as the incident related to a cognizable criminal offence is
misplaced. If the complainant has not chosen to lodge an F.I.R.
3
then there is no occasion to presume that no disciplinary
proceedings can be initiated on the same set of allegations. The
incident was reported and after reporting of the incident the said
misconduct which was during the course of the performance of
public duty, the respondents were fully justified in proceeding to
initiate disciplinary action. The said issue has been answered in the
impugned orders and apart from the same I am of the considered
opinion that the aforesaid objection is unfounded in law.
The second issue raised by Sri Singh that the petitioner was
not subjected to any medical examination has also been clearly
dealt with in the impugned orders. It was found that as a matter of
fact that the petitioner immediately absconded from the scene and
in spite of the search was not available for being subjected to
medical examination. In such a situation the petitioner cannot take
any advantage of his own absence. The petitioner could have
reported before the Station House Officer or to the Reserve Police
Lines yet he did not choose to present himself and therefore to
contend that no medical examination was carried out is without
any substance.
No other submission has been advanced in support of the
contentions raised and therefore in view of the reasons aforesaid I
do not find any merit in the writ petition.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Order date: 23.07.2010
Sahu