1
Court No. 24
Writ Petition No. 2350 (SS) of 2007
Dinesh Pratap Singh ... Petitioner
Versus
State of U. P. and others ... Opposite parties
---------------
Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma, J.
Heard Mr. Amit Bose, learned Counsel for the petitioner and
Mr. K. D. Shahi, learned Standing Counsel.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioner assails the
order dated 2.9.2003 passed by the Senior Superintendent of
Police, Lucknow, whereby the petitioner has been removed from
service and the order dated 9.3.2007 passed by the Appellate
Authority/Deputy Inspector General of Police rejecting the appeal.
The facts giving rise to the instant writ petition are that a
charge-sheet was issued by the Additional Superintendent of
Police (City), Lucknow, requiring him to submit reply the charges
that on 7.6.1997, when the petitioner was posted as Constable at
Police Station Krishna Nagar, Lucknow, on 8.6.1997, he proceeded
on 14 days casual leave and on expiry of leave, he should have
reported for his duties on 24.6.1997, but he did not report for
duties and he remained absent for duties for a period of 3 years
19 days and 10 minutes. The petitioner could not submit reply to
the aforesaid charge-sheet because it was never served upon him
either personally or through registered post as required by Note
(I) of Appendix I of the U. P. Police Officers of the Subordinate
Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. The Enquiry Officer,
however, without considering whether the charge sheet has been
served on the petitioner or not, proceeded with the departmental
proceedings behind the petitioner on the ground that the
petitioner had not submitted reply to the charge sheet and he
had also not appeared before the inquiry despite service of notice.
After the departmental proceedings, the Enquiry Officer submitted
the enquiry report dated 25.4.2003 and he came to the conclusion
2
that the charges levelled against the petitioner stood proved and
as such, a recommendation was made that punishment of removal
from service be imposed on the petitioner. On the basis of the
aforesaid enquiry report, a show cause notice dated 29.5.2003
was issued by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow. On
account of illness, the petitioner could not submit reply to the
show cause notice, as a result of which the impugned order has
been passed.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that against the
impugned order, he filed a Writ Petition No. 2705 (SS) of 2004
and this Court dismissed the said writ petition on the ground of
availability of alternative remedy. In pursuance of the order
passed by this Court, an appeal was filed, which was rejected by
the order dated 9.3.2007. Further, he contends that neither the
charge sheet nor the Enquiry Report has been served upon the
petitioner.
In the counter-affidavit it has been stated that the petitioner
has been dismissed after detailed enquiry as per Rules 1991. The
petitioner, while he was posted at P. S. Krishna Nagar in the year
1997, proceeded on 14 days casual leave on 7.6.1997 and as per
Leave Rules, he should have reported back on duty after availing
leave on 24.6.1997, but the petitioner did not report back and
instead remained absent without any sanctioned leave or any
application for leave in an unauthorized manner beyond the Rules
culminating to misconduct. The petitioner after remaining
unauthorized absent for a long period of about 3 years, reported
back on duty on 13.10.2000. For this act of misconduct, a
preliminary enquiry was ordered against the petitioner. On the
basis of the proved charges in the preliminary enquiry, a detailed
enquiry under Rule 14 (1) was ordered. The petitioner despite
having knowledge of the date and time of recording evidence did
not participate in the departmental proceedings. The charge sheet
was sent to the petitioner through Special Messenger, which was
received on 21.9.2002 by his wife Smt. Nirmala Singh. One of the
charge sheet was affixed on the door of the petitioner’s residence
in front of witnesses. The petitioner was given several
opportunities to participate in the enquiry, but he chose not to
3
participate in the departmental proceedings. The Enquiry Officer,
after completing the enquiry, found the charge of unauthorized
absence of the petitioner for a period of 3 years 19 days 10
Minutes proved against the petitioner. On this grave charge of
misconduct, the competent authority dismissed the petitioner
from service after giving him a show cause notice dated
29.5.2003. Therefore, the dismissal order has rightly been
passed.
In order to adjudicate the case, provisions of Note (I) of
Appendix I of the U.P. Officers of the Subordinate Rules
(Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 are as under:-
“(I) The charge sheet should be given to the person
concerned and his signature should be taken on a
copy of the charge-sheet. If that is not possible, it
should be served by registered post.”
As has been mentioned in the counter-affidavit, the charge
sheet was sent to the petitioner through Special Messenger, which
was received on 21.9.2002 by his wife Smt. Nirmala Singh. One of
the charge sheet was affixed on the door of the petitioner’s
residence in front of witnesses. A perusal of the aforesaid Note
(I), it reveals that the charge sheet should be given to the person
concerned, otherwise, it should be sent by the registered post.
Here, in this case, neither the charge sheet has been served
personally nor it has been sent by the registered post. Admittedly,
it has been served upon the petitioner’s wife, namely Smt.
Nirmala Singh and the same has been affixed on the door of the
petitioner’s residence of the last known address, which has been
indicated in the department. Learned Standing Counsel does not
dispute the aforesaid proposition. On this point alone, the
impugned orders are liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned
dismissal order dated 2.9.2003 passed by the Senior
Superintendent of Police, Lucknow and the order dated 9.3.2007
passed by the Appellate Authority/Deputy Inspector General of
Police rejecting the appeal of the petitioner are hereby quashed.
4
However, it will be open for the opposite parties to proceed in
accordance with law, if they so desire.
Dt. 29.1.2010
Lakshman/
