# Abdul Husain @ Soni v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2005) 2 ILRA 549
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2005-05-03
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 37601 of 2000
- **Bench:** Vikram Nath
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/abdul-husain-soni-v-state-of-u-p-40486
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Rank (Punishment of Appeal) Rules
1991-rule-14-readwith Constitution of
India,
Article
311
(2)-Service
Lawdisproportionate punishment-Petitioner
a lady police constable-main charge not
wearing proper uniform while on dutyPetitioner given her explanation due to
injuries sustained in her body due to
accident-could not wear the uniformeven then being member of police force
could not be dispense with the wearing
of proper uniform-No prior permission
from superior authority produced-heldguilty of charges-but punishment of
dismissal
appears
to
harsh
and
disproportionate-dismissal
order
quashed-direction
issued
for
lesser
punishment.

Held: Para 21 & 22

In so far as the other charge with regard
to not wearing proper uniform while on
duty even though the petitioner had
tendered explanation that on account of
injuries sustained in her body in the
accident she could not wear the uniform
I am of the view that even though the
inquiry has been held to be vitiated but
still as the petitioner has not been able
550 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
to fully justify her misconduct with
regard to the said charge the petitioner
being member of police force which
requires certain standards of discipline
to be maintained could not be allowed to
dispense with the wearing of proper
uniforms unless permitted in writing by
competent authority which admittedly
she did not possess. Therefore, without
prior permission from superior authority
she could not flout the general discipline
of the department. The petitioner is
therefore, held guilty of the said charge.

Coming to the next question with regard
to quantum of punishment, in view of
the peculiar facts and circumstances of
the case it would be appropriate that
petitioner be saddled with a punishment,
which may be proportionate to the
charge of not wearing uniform on duty.
Punishment of dismissal for the said
charge appears to be too harsh and
disproportionate. In the circumstances,
the respondents may consider awarding
any minor punishment to the petitioner
as she has been found repeatedly not
wearing the uniform despite warning
given by the officer during inspection.
Case law discussed:
1999 (2) SCC 10

## Text

2 All] Abdul Husain @ Soni V. State of U.P.

 549
that the plea of guilt given is wholly
voluntary and with full intelligence at the
command of the accused, if has not been
done by the court, such plea of guilt
recorded cannot be treated as sufficient
for recording conviction of the accused.
 In the present case the learned trial Judge
has failed to observe all these formalities
and in a slip-shod manner has accepted
the laconic statement of the accused
recorded as admission of the guilt, upon
which he has based the impugned
judgment of conviction and sentence. In
these circumstances, the judgment under
challenge in the present appeal cannot
sustain in the eye of law and has to be set
aside.

12. In result, the appeal is allowed.
The impugned judgment and order dated
30.8.2001 is set aside.

13. The case is sent back to the trial
court for being taken up for trial and to
proceed in accordance with law. It shall,
however, be open to the trial court not to
reject any fresh plea of guilt by way of
admission of the offence if given by the
accused-appellant, but it shall observe all
these formalities before recording the
admission of guilt of the accused and
before
accepting
it
for
recording
conviction against him.

14. Office is directed to send back
the record at once to the trial court where
the case shall proceed in accordance with
law.
Appeal Allowed
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.05.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VIKRAM NATH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 37601 of 2000

Smt. Shail Shukla

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.B. Singhal

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri R.K. Tiwari
S.C.

U.P. Police officers of the Subordinate
Rank (Punishment of Appeal) Rules
1991-rule-14-readwith Constitution of
India,
Article
311
(2)-Service
Lawdisproportionate punishment-Petitioner
a lady police constable-main charge not
wearing proper uniform while on dutyPetitioner given her explanation due to
injuries sustained in her body due to
accident-could not wear the uniformeven then being member of police force
could not be dispense with the wearing
of proper uniform-No prior permission
from superior authority produced-heldguilty of charges-but punishment of
dismissal
appears
to
harsh
and
disproportionate-dismissal
order
quashed-direction
issued
for
lesser
punishment.

Held: Para 21 & 22

In so far as the other charge with regard
to not wearing proper uniform while on
duty even though the petitioner had
tendered explanation that on account of
injuries sustained in her body in the
accident she could not wear the uniform
I am of the view that even though the
inquiry has been held to be vitiated but
still as the petitioner has not been able
550 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
to fully justify her misconduct with
regard to the said charge the petitioner
being member of police force which
requires certain standards of discipline
to be maintained could not be allowed to
dispense with the wearing of proper
uniforms unless permitted in writing by
competent authority which admittedly
she did not possess. Therefore, without
prior permission from superior authority
she could not flout the general discipline
of the department. The petitioner is
therefore, held guilty of the said charge.

Coming to the next question with regard
to quantum of punishment, in view of
the peculiar facts and circumstances of
the case it would be appropriate that
petitioner be saddled with a punishment,
which may be proportionate to the
charge of not wearing uniform on duty.
Punishment of dismissal for the said
charge appears to be too harsh and
disproportionate. In the circumstances,
the respondents may consider awarding
any minor punishment to the petitioner
as she has been found repeatedly not
wearing the uniform despite warning
given by the officer during inspection.
Case law discussed:
1999 (2) SCC 10

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vikram Nath J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed
for quashing the order dated 8.5.2000
dismissing the petitioner from service and
the order dated 3.7.2000 passed by the
appellate authority dismissing the appeal
of the petitioner.

2. Petitioner was lady police
constable in U.P. Civil Police since 1980.
It is alleged that the petitioner met with a
serious accident and had to undergo
surgery twice with regard to the fracture
in left hand and in the hip joint. The
petitioner was suspended on 30.10.98
against which she preferred writ petition
in this Court being Writ Petition No.
36557 of 1998, which was disposed of on
26.11.1998 with the direction to conclude
the enquiry within a period of three
months failing which the petitioner would
be
entitled
for
reinstatement.
The
respondents did not complete the enquiry
within the time allowed nor considered
the request of reinstatement of the
petitioner, as such, the petitioner preferred
Contempt Petition No. 716 of 1999 which
was disposed of on 11.03.1999 and
thereafter she was reinstated. It is alleged
that on account of this contempt petition
the respondent got annoyed and decided
to teach her a lesson. The impugned order
of dismissal is an out come of the
annoyance of the respondents. The charge
sheet was issued to the petitioner only on
15.6.99 after the order in the contempt
petition
had
been
passed
and
the
petitioner had been reinstated which itself
shows the conduct of the respondents that
for a period of eight months no enquiry
was initiated against the petitioner till the
order in contempt petition had been
passed and the petitioner had been
reinstated.

3. The charge sheet was issued to
the petitioner on 15.6.99 with the
allegations
that
the
petitioner
was
assigned the duty to produce the inmates
of the jail for remand before the
Magistrate and while performing the said
duty the petitioner was not wearing the
proper uniform and also allowed the
inmates to interact with outsiders and as
such she was negligent in her duties. It
was further alleged that she deliberately
flouted the orders of the superior Officer.
The charge as framed was vague and did
not refer to any specific incident. Further
the charge sheet relied upon six witnesses
namely (i) Ram Surat Verma Constable
2 All] Smt. Shail Shukla V. State of U.P. and others

 551
Civil Police, (ii) Jamuna Prasad Constable
Civil Police, (iii) Deo Nath Tiwari Head
Constable, (iv) Shyam Sundar Singh
Constable Civil Police, (v) Sri R.N.
Upadhya Senior Superintendent Central
Jail, Naini for proving his report/letter
dated 30.10.98 and (vi) Sri Vikram
Thakur Asstt. Superintendent, Central
Jail, Naini to prove the preliminary
enquiry report. The petitioner submitted
her reply to the charge sheet and
requested
for
cross-examining
the
witnesses and further to submit her
defence
after
cross-examining
the
prosecution witnesses. The inquiry was
entrusted to Sri Jugal Kishor, Circle
Officer (City II) Allahabad.

4. In the inquiry all the witnesses
except one were examined. The main
witness R.N. Upadhyay on whose report
action was taken was not examined. The
inquiry officer submitted his report dated
28.2.2000. The Disciplinary Authority
thereafter issued show cause notice dated
29.3.2000 proposing to award punishment
of dismissal from service. Petitioner
submitted a detailed reply to the show
cause notice. However, The Disciplinary
Authority not being satisfied with the
show cause submitted by the petitioner
passed the impugned order of dismissal
dated 8.5.2000. Aggrieved by the same,
the petitioner preferred the departmental
appeal to the Deputy Inspector General of
Police, Allahabad Region, Allahabad on
10.5.2000, which also did not find favour
and was dismissed by the appellate
authority vide order dated 30.7.2000.
Aggrieved by the same the present writ
petition has been filed.

5. I have heard Sri R.B. Singhal,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
R.K. Tiwari learned Standing Counsel
representing the respondents and have
perused the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner
has raised the following points:

(1) The enquiry conducted by the enquiry
officer was contrary to the principles
of natural justice and fair play and in
violation of the statutory provisions
for
conducting
departmental
proceedings in as much as the main
witness
Sri
R.N.
Upadhyay
mentioned in the charge sheet who
was also the complainant to prove his
report, was not examined in the
inquiry thereby vitiating the same and
despite request the petitioner was not
afforded
opportunity
to
cross-
examine him.
(2) The punishment of dismissal awarded
to the petitioner was a malafide action
and predetermined on account of
petitioner
having
filed
contempt
petition; and this ground further finds
support from the fact that the inquiry
Officer
was
a
lower
grade/
subordinate Officer to the Officer
who had made the complaint and thus
the inquiry was biased and influenced
by superior officer.
(3) The punishment awarded to the
petitioner was disproportionate to the
charge leveled against her and was
too harsh and excessive.
(4) The disciplinary authority and the
appellate authority while awarding
the punishment had relied on certain
charges alleged to have been proved
which were not even mentioned in the
charge sheet and no enquiry in that
regard had been conducted and the
petitioner had no opportunity to
defend
herself
against
the
said
552 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
charges as they were not part of the
charge sheet.
(5) The evidence on record before the
enquiry officer was not at all
sufficient to prove the petitioner
guilty of the alleged charges.
(6) The evidence of the prosecution
witness Smt. Sarita Chaudhary had
been ignored which clearly disproved
the charge relating to permitting the
inmates to interact with outsiders.

6.

Learned
Standing
Counsel
representing
the
respondents
has
contended that this Court under Article
226 of Constitution cannot review the
decision taken after full departmental
proceeding and findings based upon
appreciation of evidence could not be
interfered with. The order of dismissal
and the appellate order confirming the
punishment are legal and valid and do not
fall within the scope of judicial review
under Article 226 of the Constitution.

7. Departmental proceedings were
initiated pursuant to the confidential
report dated 30.10.98 of R.N. Upadhyay
Senior Superintendent, Central Jail Naini,
Allahabad in which it was apparently
alleged that the petitioner had not been
wearing uniform while on duty and had
allowed one of the inmates of the jail
while being produced on remand before
the Magistrate to interact with outsiders
and was therefore, guilty of dereliction of
duty and also gross negligence. In the
charge sheet dated 15.6.99 in the list of
evidences/ witnesses at Sl.No.5 the name
of R.N. Upadhyay Senior Superintendent,
Central
Jail,
Naini,
Allahabad
is
mentioned and he had to prove his report
dated 30.10.98. In reply to the charge
sheet the petitioner in her letter had
specifically requested to cross-examine all
the witnesses who were to be produced on
behalf of the prosecution.

8. It needs to be mentioned that the
enquiry report incorporates certain facts
which itself establish that the enquiry was
not conducted in accordance with law and
in fair manner.

9. It has been recorded that after
close of the prosecution evidence on
6.1.2000 the delinquent petitioner was
asked to submit her defence and also to
produce any witness or documentary
evidence, which she may prefer. In
response to the said request the petitioner
submitted reply dated 16.1.2000 wherein
she specifically requested that R.N.
Upadhyay Senior Superintendent, Central
Jail, Naini on whose report the entire
proceedings were initiated and was also
the vital witness has not been produced
even though his name is mentioned in the
charge sheet as a witness nor the
petitioner has been allowed to crossexamine the witness. It was further
alleged in the reply that in the absence of
the said witness the entire enquiry
proceeding stood vitiated and the charge
alleged against the petitioner was not
proved at all. Having recorded the request
of the petitioner, enquiry officer proceeds
to mention that Sri R.N. Upadhya the then
Senior Superintendent Central Jail Naini
on whose report the enquiry had been
initiated, was presently posted in the
office of Inspector General Lucknow has
informed vide letter dated 30.7.99 that his
report dated 30.10.98 may be treated to be
his statement and therefore, the enquiry
officer recorded that the contention of the
petitioner that R.N. Upadhya has not been
produced is incorrect and on strength of
the letter dated 30.7,99 it was held that his
statement has been validly recorded. No
2 All] Smt. Shail Shukla V. State of U.P. and others

 553
reasons were given as to why the
petitioner was being deprived of crossexamining the said witness Sri R.N.
Upadhyay.

10. The inquiry officer without
getting the report of R.N. Upadhya proved
in the inquiry proceeded not only to rely
upon the report and also relied upon the
letter which was annexed with the report
dated 30.10.98 on the basis of which it
was held that petitioner was helping Km.
Anju to meet one person Sunil. The said
report was not proved and therefore, no
reliance could be placed upon the same
not only on this ground but also for the
reason that the petitioner despite request
did not get any opportunity to cross
examine the said witness. On the contrary
the inquiry officer relying upon the said
report held the petitioner guilty of the said
charge and recommended for dismissal of
the petitioner from service.

11. The Disciplinary Authority
issued
show
cause
notice
dated
29.03.2000 as to why petitioner may not
be dismissed from service. The petitioner
submitted a detail reply to the show cause
notice, again reiterating her stand that
R.N. Upadhyay Senior Superintendent,
Central Jail, Naini was not produced nor
opportunity was allowed to cross examine
him. Further it was alleged that no
evidence had been brought in the inquiry
to establish that petitioner had ever
allowed any inmate of the jail to meet any
stranger.

12. The disciplinary authority
proceeded on the same lines as the
enquiry officer and relying upon the
report of the Senior Superintendent,
Central Jail, Naini agreed with the finding
of guilt, of not only the charge mentioned
in the charge sheet but also proceeded and
recorded the findings that the petitioner
had been guilty of insubordination and
disobedience and was also coming on
duty under effect of intoxication. It may
be noted that the charge sheet did not
mention of being present on duty under
effect of intoxication.

13. The rules relating to holding of
disciplinary inquiry provide for giving
opportunity to the petitioner for crossexamining the witnesses and also to allow
the request for producing witnesses. The
procedure
for
holding
disciplinary
proceedings is provided under Rule 14
and the Appendix I attached to the U.P.
Police Officers of the Subordinate Rank
(Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1991 (in
short referred to as the Rules) The same
are reproduced below for sake of
convenience.

"14. Procedure for conducting
departmental proceedings.-(1) Subject
to the provisions contained in these Rules,
the departmental proceedings in the cases
referred to in sub-rule (1) of Rule 5
against the Police Officers may be
conducted
in
accordance
with
the
procedure laid down in Appendix 1.

Appendix-1
Procedure relating to the conduct of
departmental proceedings against
Police Officer.
(See Rule 14 (1)]

Upon institution of a formal enquiry
such Police Officer against whom the
inquiry has been instituted shall be
informed in writing of the grounds on
which was proposed to take action and
shall be afforded an adequate opportunity
of defending himself. The grounds on
554 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
which it is proposed to take action shall
be used in the form of a definite charge or
charges as in Form 1 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 finding 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. Further Article 311(2) of the
Constitution
also
provides
for
a
reasonable opportunity to the employee in
any departmental proceedings where
major penalty is proposed. The inquiry
officer having declined either to produce
Sri
R.N.
Upadhyay
or
to
allow
opportunity of cross-examination to the
petitioner clearly violated the statutory
provisions for holding the disciplinary
proceedings thereby vitiating the inquiry.

15. It has however been mentioned
in the order of dismissal that the petitioner
was given opportunity to cross-examine
the other witnesses and therefore, even if
Sri R.N. Upadhyay had not been produced
and had not been cross-examined the
petitioner could not disprove the charge.
The observations are totally contrary to
the
fundamental
principles
of
departmental
proceeding,
and
also
contrary to the statutory procedural safe
guards in awarding major punishment.
The burden is on the department to prove
the charge. The petitioner cannot be asked
to
disprove
unless
the
prosecution
discharges its burden of proving the
charge.

16. On behalf of the prosecution
Constable 323 Shyam Sundar Singh,
Head Constable 55 Sri Jamuna Prasad,
Constable 1733 Ram Surat Verma, H.C.
215
Deo
Mani
Tiwari,
Asstt.
Superintendent Central Jail Nani Sri
Vikram Thakur who had made the
preliminary
investigation
and
lady
constable 710 Smt. Sarita Chaudhari had
been produced. The first four witnesses
had only deposed to the effect that the
petitioner had not been wearing uniform
on duty. Sri Vikram Thakur had proved
his preliminary enquiry report and lady
constable Smt. Sarita Chaudhary had also
deposed only about not wearing of proper
uniform. At best the only charge for
which evidence was available on record
was with regard to not wearing the
uniform while on duty. The other charge
with regard to the jail inmates being
allowed to interact with outsider was
based on the report of Sri R.N. Upadhyay.
The said report had neither been proved
nor petitioner was given opportunity to
cross-examine Sri R.N. Upadhyay. The
said charge therefore could not have been
2 All] Smt. Shail Shukla V. State of U.P. and others

 555
held to be proved as there was no
admissible evidence in that regard. In the
circumstances,
the
only
evidence
available on record was with regard to the
charge of not wearing proper uniform
while on duty. Such a charge even if
found proved could not result into
punishment of dismissal from service.

17. The procedure adopted in the
inquiry, the observations made by the
inquiry officer, the observations and
findings recorded in the impugned orders
do not inspire confidence that everything
was done in a fair and impartial manner.
There are clear indications that it was case
as if decision had been taken before
conducting the inquiry and it was only a
show of formalities. The dates referred to
in the beginning of this judgment with
regard to suspension, stay by the High
Court,
notices
issued
in
contempt,
revocation of suspension, thereafter issue
of charge sheet, inquiry by an officer
lower in rank to the officer making the
complaint, denial of opportunity in the
inquiry if taken up together lead to the
inescapable conclusion that the inquiry
was not fair and impartial. It was not
conducted
in
accordance
with
the
procedure provided under law.

18. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has relied upon the decision of
the Apex Court in the case of Kuldeep
Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police and
others reported in 1999(2) SCC page
10. This case also related to lady police
constable and is somewhat similar with
the facts of the present case. The main
complainant
was
not
produced
in
departmental enquiry and the evidence
with regard to the charge was lacking. In
the circumstances Supreme Court set
aside the order of punishment holding as
follows in paragraphs 32 and 42 of the
judgment.

32. Apart from the above, Rule 16(3)
has to be considered in the light of the
provisions contained in Article 311(2) of
the Constitution to find out whether it
purports
to
provide
reasonable
opportunity of hearing to the delinquent.
Reasonable opportunity contemplated by
Article
311(2)
means
"hearing"
in
accordance with the principles of natural
justice under which one of the basic
requirements is that all the witnesses in
the
departmental
enquiry
shall
be
examined
in
the
presence
of
the
delinquent who shall be given an
opportunity
to
cross-examine
them.
Where a statement previously made by a
witness, either during the course of
preliminary enquiry or investigation, is
proposed to be brought on record in the
departmental proceedings, the law as laid
down by this Court is that a copy of that
statement should first be supplied to the
delinquent who should thereafter be given
an opportunity to cross-examine that
witness.

42. The enquiry officer did not sit
with an open mind to hold an impartial
domestic enquiry, which is an essential
component of the principles of natural
justice as also that of "reasonable
opportunity" contemplated by Article
311(2) of the Constitution. The "bias" in
favour of the Department had so badly
affected the enquiry officer's whole faculty
of reasoning that even non-production of
the complainants was ascribed to the
appellant, which squarely was the fault of
the Department. Once the Department
knew that the labourers were employed
somewhere in Devli Khanpur, their
presence could have been procured and
556 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
they could have been produced before the
enquiry officer to prove the charge
framed against the appellant. He has
acted so arbitrarily in the matter and has
found the appellant guilty in such a
coarse manner that it becomes apparent
that he was merely carrying out the
command from some superior officer who
perhaps directed "fix him up".

19. In view of what have been stated
above and also considering the law laid
down by Supreme Court in the case of
Kuldeep Singh (Supra) the facts of
which are similar to the present case, the
enquiry proceedings stands vitiated and
could not have been made basis for
awarding punishment of dismissal.

20. It has also come in the inquiry
report that the petitioner who had claimed
to be not physically fit on account of an
accident in which she had suffered
fracture of the hip joint and in the left
hand and a rod had also been implanted to
support the bones of the left hand and that
she had fainted twice while performing
her duty of producing the inmates before
the Chief Judicial Magistrate as she had
difficulty in climbing five stories of
building and on account of which, she had
been admitted in the Government Civil
Hospital.

21. In the circumstances there being
no evidence with regard to the charge of
allowing inmates of the jail to interact
with outsider the punishment on that
charge cannot be upheld. In so far as the
other charge with regard to not wearing
proper uniform while on duty even though
the petitioner had tendered explanation
that on account of injuries sustained in her
body in the accident she could not wear
the uniform I am of the view that even
though the inquiry has been held to be
vitiated but still as the petitioner has not
been able to fully justify her misconduct
with regard to the said charge the
petitioner being member of police force
which requires certain standards of
discipline to be maintained could not be
allowed to dispense with the wearing of
proper uniforms unless permitted in
writing by competent authority which
admittedly she did not possess. Therefore,
without prior permission from superior
authority she could not flout the general
discipline
of
the
department.
The
petitioner is therefore, held guilty of the
said charge.

22. Coming to the next question
with regard to quantum of punishment, in
view
of
the
peculiar
facts
and
circumstances of the case it would be
appropriate that petitioner be saddled with
a
punishment,
which
may
be
proportionate to the charge of not wearing
uniform on duty. Punishment of dismissal
for the said charge appears to be too harsh
and
disproportionate.
In
the
circumstances,
the
respondents
may
consider awarding any minor punishment
to the petitioner as she has been found
repeatedly not wearing the uniform
despite warning given by the officer
during inspection.

23. Accordingly, the writ petition
succeeds and is allowed. The impugned
order of dismissal dated 8.5.2000 and
order
of
appellate
authority
dated
30.7.2000 are set aside. It would however
be open to the respondents to award any
lesser punishment as observed above.
Petition Allowed.
---------
2 All] Smt. Shail Shukla V. State of U.P. and others

 557
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.05.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VIKRAM NATH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9209 of 2002

Satendra Kumar Sharma
...Petitioner
Versus
State of U. P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.K. Jaiswal

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

U.P. Police officers of the Subordinate
Rules (Punishment of Appeal) Rules
1991-Rule 14 (5) Appendix-I- formal
enquiry-petitioner a Police Constablesubjected to face disciplinary proceeding
for unauthorized absence from dutyNotice
to
face
the
disciplinary
proceeding-regarding personal hearing
given by providing 3 days time would be
reasonable 15 days time would be
reasonable
period-enquiry
in
contravention
of
the
Rule-vitiateddismissal order Quashed.

Held: Para 14

In the inquiry the petitioner would have
had the opportunity to establish their
correctness. Since there has been no
finding by the Inquiry Officer on the
genuineness or otherwise of the medical
certificates
their
rejection
by
the
disciplinary authority amounts to denial
of opportunity.
Case law discussed:
1998 (7) SCC-569

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vikram Nath, J.)

1. This writ petition is directed
against the order dated 15.05.2000,
whereby the petitioner was dismissed
from service and also the order dated
10.01.2002, whereby the appeal against
the order of dismissal has also been
dismissed.

2. The petitioner, who was working
on the post of Sub Inspector, Civil Police
at the relevant time, was posted at
Mathura. By order of the DIG Kanpur
Zone, dated 29.04.1999 the petitioner was
transferred from Mathura to Etawah.
According to the petitioner, he was
relieved
on
11.05.1999,
whereas
according to the department he was
relieved on 05.05.1999. Whatever the
case may be, the petitioner was to join
within one week from the date he was
relieved. After being relieved from
Mathura the petitioner did not join at
Etawah and remained absent without any
intimation or notice to the department.
The respondents, after giving warning and
notice to the petitioner suspended him
vide order dated 23.02.2000. Thereafter,
charge sheet was issued to the petitioner
on 26.02.2000, which was sent at his
residence in district Bulandshahr, but he
was not available and, therefore, the
notice was affixed at his house in district
Bulandshahr.
Thereafter,
again
on
06.03.2000, another copy of the charge
sheet was sent at his residence in village
Nevada, Post Office Chandel, Police
Station
Kotwali
Dehat,
District
Bulandshahr. When the petitioner was not
found at his residence, again the notice
was affixed at the main entrance of the
house in presence of local witnesses. The
Enquiry Officer initiated proceedings and
fixed 22nd March 2000 for evidence for
which again intimation was sent on
16.03.2000
at
Bulandshahr
address.
Notice was again affixed at the main
entrance on 17.03.2000. The petitioner