Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 219 of 2010 Petitioner :- Bijendra Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Siddharth Khare,Ashok Khare Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Heard Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner and the learned standing counsel.
The matter had been adjourned day before yesterday i.e.
06.01.2010 in order to enable the learned standing counsel
to obtain instructions as to whether the Deputy Inspector
General of Police, Saharanpur Range, Saharanpur has
delegated his powers to the Superintendent of Police,
Muzaffar Nagar. Learned standing counsel on the basis of
the instructions received informed that the powers have
been delegated.
Shri Khare contends that on merit the suspension order is
founded on such an incident with regard to which Sub-
Divisional Magistrate has submitted a report on 03.12.2009
and which does not display any negligence on the part of the
petitioner. The said report is appended as annexure 6 to the
writ petition. Shri Khare further contends that the impugned
order of suspension does not recite any other incident apart
from the same and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to
be set aside.
The impugned order recites that an incident between two
sects of the minority community had taken place on
28.12.2009 and 29.12.2009 and apart from that the
petitioner has failed to perform his duties diligently, as a
result thereof, he was suspended.
Learned standing counsel has produced the instructions and
the report of the Superintendent of Police (City), Muzaffar
Nagar, which indicates that there were other incidents
preceding the incident of the communal dispute, which has
also been taken into account while proceeding to pass the
suspension order.
According to the said report, the petitioner has not been
performing his duties diligently, as a result whereof, the law
and order situation in his area and within his jurisdiction has
deteriorated.
Shri Khare contends that the petitioner was not expected to
prevent any such incident, in the manner in which it has
been indicated in the report of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
which arose out of indiscriminate playing of local cricketers.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in
view the nature of submissions advanced, it is evident that
the question as to whether the petitioner was a diligent
officer and as to whether his negligence was grave enough
so as to cause the incident is subject matter of the inquiry
itself. In the event the petitioner is found negligent so as to
allow to such incidents to happen in his locality where he
was posted then the same may warrant an appropriate
action to be taken.
In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the
suspension order is founded on irrelevant material or is
otherwise perverse.
No ground for interference under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is made out. The writ petition lacks
merit and is accordingly dismissed.
The inquiry, if any, may be concluded within three months.
Order Date :- 8.1.2010
Akv