Court No. - 25 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 28528 of 2010 Petitioner :- Shesh Mani Dubey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Vijay Gautam,V. K. Mishra Respondent Counsel :- C. S. C. Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing
counsel.
Inspite of time having granted to the learned standing counsel no
counter affidavit has been filed.
This writ petition has been filed questioning the correctness of the order
passed by the Inspector General of Police, Allahabad Range, Allahabad
exercising his powers under Rule 8(2)(b) of the U.P.Police Officers of
Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 dispensing
the services of the petitioner on account of his involvement in the
incident as narrated in the order.
The facts leading to passing of the order are that some information was
received by the police authorities that some persons are unauthorisedly
realising money by way of extortion and an F.I.R. was lodged to that
effect. It is contended that the petitioner was also found involved along
with his brother in the said incident. The criminal case is stated to be
pending. In between an order has been passed on 9.4.2010 dismissing
the petitioner from service.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order of dismissal is
erroneous and not in accordance with law keeping in view the law laid
down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Yadunath
Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009(9) ADJ 86.
The submission is that the impugned order records a categorical finding
that it is not reasonable to hold the inquiry as the conduct of the
petitioner amounts to lowering the prestige of the Police Department.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the absence of any
satisfaction recorded for dispensing the enquiry, the impugned order is
vitiated as it does not satisfy the requirement of Rule 8(2)(b).
Learned standing counsel contends that the petitioner is involved in a
criminal case and the nature of the incident was such fact it would be
practically impossible to obtain any evidence so as to hold a regular
inquiry under Rule 14(1) of the U.P.Police Officers of the Subordinate
Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991.
Having considered the submissions advanced and having perused the
ratio of the aforesaid decision I am of the view that the contention raised
by the learned standing counsel that it will not be possible to obtain any
evidence is a mere presumption and further the same cannot be a
reason to dispense with an inquiry. This submission of the learned
standing counsel is even otherwise not borne out from reasons given in
the impugned order which do not indicate or reflect the aforesaid
submission. In my opinion the reasons given in the impugned order are
in term of the ratio of the decision of the Division Bench judgment in the
case of Yadunath (supra).
The order dated 21.4.2010 being in breach of the aforesaid ratio of the
decision of the Division Bench is set aside leaving it open to the
respondent authorities to proceed against the petitioner in accordance
with law keeping in view the fact that a criminal case is already lodged
against him.
It is further made clear that this order will not entitle the petitioner to
claim any automatic consideration for re-instatement and the
respondent authorities if proceed to make an inquiry the same shall be
concluded within three months.
The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 16.7.2010
mna