# Amar Pal Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2015) 2 ILRA 615
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2015-04-20
- **Case number:** C.M.W.P. No. 30688 of 2011
- **Bench:** Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/amar-pal-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43253
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art.-226-Dismissal of
sub-inspector
of
police-charged
with
negligence in duty-enquiry officer submitted
report-without giving opportunity to adduce
witness-contrary to provision of Rule 1991inspite of specific ground taken in appeal as
well as revision-remained-held-principle of
natural
justice-violated-untouched
order
quashed with direction to proceed with fresh
disciplinary proceeding from the stage of
denial of opportunity.
Held: Para-19
After careful consideration of the matter,
I am of the view that the enquiry has
vitiated on the ground of violation of
principles of natural justice and nonapplication of mind. Accordingly, the
dismissal order, appellate order and
revisional order dated 29th January,
2009, 03rd February, 2010 and 27th
616
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
November, 2010, as are impugned in this
writ petition, passed by the fourth, third
and second respondents respectively, are
quashed. The disciplinary authority is
directed to conduct a fresh enquiry from
the stage when the petitioner was
denied
the
opportunity.
The
fresh
enquiry may be concluded expeditiously.
Case Law discussed:
(1999) 2 SCC 10; (1978) 3 SCC 366:1978 SCC
(L& S) 458: AIR 1978 SC 1277:(1978) 3 SCR
708; (1964) 2 LLJ 150: AIR 1963 SC 1723:
(1964) 3 SCR 25; (1969) 2 LLJ 377: AIR 1969
SC 983; (1976) 1 SCC 518: 1976 SCC (L&S)
92:1976 Lab IC 4:AIR 1976 SC 98:(1976) 2
SCR 280; (1984) 4 SCC 635:1985 SCC (L&S)
131:AIR 1984 SC 1805:(1985) 1 SCR 866:
(1985) 3 SCC 378: (1966) 1 SCR 466:AIR 1966
SC 671:(1966) 1 SCJ 204:(1971) 1 SCR
201:(1970) 1 SCC 764; (2006) 5 SCC 88.

## Text

2 All] Amar Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
615
Supreme Court observed that any culpable
delay in settlement and disbursement thereof
is to be visited with penalty of payment of
interest. Hence, interest @ 9% on delayed
payment was awarded to be paid within six
weeks failing which interest @ 18% p.a.
would need to be paid. An erroneous
withholding of gratuity amount to which the
employee is legally entitled, entails penalty
on the delayed payment
10. In this view of the matter, this
Court is of the view that the claim of the
petitioner for interest on the delayed
payment of retiral benefits has to be
sustained and it is a fit case where the writ
petition is liable to be allowed.
11. Normally this Court in exercise of
its equitable discretion does not settle the
State with civil liability unless the Court is
satisfied that the helpless employee had been
compelled to litigate for his survival for more
than two years and the action of the
respondent State Government and its officers
is found to be wholly arbitrary, unreasonable
and malicious in non finalization of the
retiral to the petitioner in time.
12. The Court may add here that after
serving the qualifying period of service, the
employee does not ordinarily have any other
means of livelihood, when he needs them
more other than his dues. It is extremely
unjust and harsh to allow a retired employee
to wait to receive the dues, and to depend
upon his friends, relatives and children. The
right to receive retiral dues/ terminal dues is
closely linked to his right of self-respect, and
human dignity, which is included in right to
life guaranteed by Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.
13. Accordingly, this writ petition is
allowed. The respondents are directed to
calculate and pay to the petitioner interest
on the delayed payment of the retiral
benefits amounting to Rs.8,52,837/- from
01.7.2010 to the date of actual payment i.e.
11.11.2012 @ 10% simple per annum. The
required calculation shall be made within
two months, and the interest shall be paid to
him within one month thereafter.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.04.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH
BAGHEL, J.
C.M.W.P. No. 30688 of 2011
Amar Pal Singh
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ashok Khare, Sri Siddharth Khare
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Constitution of India, Art.-226-Dismissal of
sub-inspector
of
police-charged
with
negligence in duty-enquiry officer submitted
report-without giving opportunity to adduce
witness-contrary to provision of Rule 1991inspite of specific ground taken in appeal as
well as revision-remained-held-principle of
natural
justice-violated-untouched
order
quashed with direction to proceed with fresh
disciplinary proceeding from the stage of
denial of opportunity.
Held: Para-19
After careful consideration of the matter,
I am of the view that the enquiry has
vitiated on the ground of violation of
principles of natural justice and nonapplication of mind. Accordingly, the
dismissal order, appellate order and
revisional order dated 29th January,
2009, 03rd February, 2010 and 27th
616
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
November, 2010, as are impugned in this
writ petition, passed by the fourth, third
and second respondents respectively, are
quashed. The disciplinary authority is
directed to conduct a fresh enquiry from
the stage when the petitioner was
denied
the
opportunity.
The
fresh
enquiry may be concluded expeditiously.
Case Law discussed:
(1999) 2 SCC 10; (1978) 3 SCC 366:1978 SCC
(L& S) 458: AIR 1978 SC 1277:(1978) 3 SCR
708; (1964) 2 LLJ 150: AIR 1963 SC 1723:
(1964) 3 SCR 25; (1969) 2 LLJ 377: AIR 1969
SC 983; (1976) 1 SCC 518: 1976 SCC (L&S)
92:1976 Lab IC 4:AIR 1976 SC 98:(1976) 2
SCR 280; (1984) 4 SCC 635:1985 SCC (L&S)
131:AIR 1984 SC 1805:(1985) 1 SCR 866:
(1985) 3 SCC 378: (1966) 1 SCR 466:AIR 1966
SC 671:(1966) 1 SCJ 204:(1971) 1 SCR
201:(1970) 1 SCC 764; (2006) 5 SCC 88.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar
Singh Baghel, J.)
1. This is a writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution by a SubInspector (Special Grade) against the
order dated 29th January, 2009, whereby
he has been dismissed from service on the
ground of negligence in his duty as two
prisoners
escaped
from
the
police
custody, and orders dated 03rd February,
2010 and 27th November, 2010 whereby
his
statutory
appeal
and
revision
respectively have also been dismissed.
2.
A brief reference to the factual
aspect would suffice. The petitioner was
initially appointed as a Constable in Civil
Police in the year 1977. He earned his
promotion on the post of Head Constable in
1992. On the basis of his satisfactory service,
he was further promoted as Sub-Inspector
(Special Grade) in 2007. In the year 2008 he
was posted in District Firozabad. On 11th
April, 2008 the petitioner along with Head
Constable Horam Singh; Constables Khajan
Singh, Jaiveer Singh, Gazendra Singh and
Lal Singh; and Constable Driver Dashrath
Singh were deputed for producing six
prisoners, namely, Lala, Rakesh alias Lohare,
Parveen, Mangal Singh, B.D.O. alias Rajan
Singh and Anil Sharma in the Court. Out of
six prisoners, two prisoners, namely, Rakesh
alias Lohare and Lala escaped from the
police van while it was stationed in the Court
premises. With regard to the said incident a
first information report was lodged on the
same day i.e. 11th April, 2008 at Police
Station New Agra. The petitioner was placed
under suspension by the Superintendent of
Police, Firozabad, the fourth respondent, on
the same day on the allegation that the
aforesaid two prisoners escaped from the
policy custody. On the basis of a preliminary
enquiry report dated 30th June, 2008 a
charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner
on 21st July, 2008. The only allegation in the
charge-sheet was that due to negligence of
the petitioner two prisoners successfully
escaped from the custody of the police. The
petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the
charge-sheet. The reply filed by the petitioner
is on the record as annexure-6 to the writ
petition. In the enquiry, the department
produced nine witnesses, who were crossexamined by the petitioner.
3. On 11th December, 2008 a
communication was issued by the Enquiry
Officer to the petitioner to the effect that
he may submit the names of the witnesses
and his explanation within a week. In
response to the said letter, the petitioner
submitted a detailed explanation/reply on
18th December, 2008. In the said reply he
has also mentioned the names of his
defence witnesses and seven documentary
evidences to indicate that he was not
guilty of the charges levelled against him.
He submitted an application for providing
him copy of the statements of some of the
2 All] Amar Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
617
witnesses and also submitted an application
for extension of time to submit the reply.
On 19th December, 2008, just after one day,
the Enquiry Officer directed the petitioner
to appear before him on 22nd December,
2008 i.e. three days' time was granted to the
petitioner.
4. The petitioner has averred that he
could not produce his witnesses as a very
short time of three days was granted to him
to produce the witnesses. In view of the
short time, the petitioner had also obtained
the affidavits of some of his witnesses and
he made a request that Beeresh Kumar and
Ramvir Singh, who were posted as Court
Moharrir
in
the
District
Court,
be
summoned for recording their evidence. In
this regard, the petitioner had moved an
application dated 24th December, 2008,
which is on the record as Annexure-10 to
the writ petition.
5. The grievance of the petitioner is
that the Enquiry Officer ignored his
request
and
did
not
summon
the
witnesses,
who,
according
to
the
petitioner, were important witnesses. The
Enquiry Officer thereafter proceeded
exparte and submitted an enquiry report
dated 26th December, 2008 holding that
the charge levelled against the petitioner
has been proved and he is guilty of
negligence of duty. A copy of the enquiry
report has been brought on record as
Annexure-11 to the writ petition.
6. Thereafter a show cause notice
was issued to the petitioner on 29th
December, 2008, which he had replied on
15th January, 2009. A copy of the reply
submitted by the petitioner dated 15th
January, 2009 is on the record as
annexure-13 to the writ petition. The
disciplinary authority found the petitioner
guilty and dismissed him from service
vide order dated 29th January, 2009.
7. Dissatisfied with the order of
dismissal, the petitioner preferred an
appeal before the appellate authority i.e.
Inspector General of Police, Agra Region,
Agra, who dismissed the appeal on 03rd
February, 2010. Aggrieved by the said
order, the petitioner preferred a revision
before the Additional Director of Police/
Director (Traffic), U.P., Lucknow which
has
also
been
dismissed
on
27th
November, 2010.
8. A counter affidavit has been filed
on behalf of the fourth respondent
wherein it is stated that as per the
procedure laid down under Rule 14(1) of
the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the
Subordinate
Ranks
(Punishment
and
Appeal) Rules, 19911 a disciplinary
proceeding was initiated against the
petitioner
and
after
giving
him
opportunity, the charge levelled against
him about his negligence has been proved
and thus, there is no error in the dismissal
of the petitioner. No other fact has been
mentioned in the counter affidavit. Only
charge and the findings recorded by the
Enquiry Officer have been referred.
9. I have heard Sri Ashok Khare,
learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri
Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the
petitioner, and learned Standing Counsel.
10. It is contended on behalf of the
petitioner that the disciplinary proceeding
has been conducted in violation of the
principles of natural justice as only three
days' time was granted to the petitioner
vide notice dated 19th December, 2008,
whereby the petitioner was asked to
appear on 22nd December, 2008 at 11.00
618
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
A.M.. Although very short time was granted
to the petitioner, when he reached at the
office where he was called, the Enquiry
Officer had already left the place. Thus, the
petitioner could not produce his witnesses,
however, he submitted the affidavits of the
witnesses in the office of the Enquiry
Officer. It is submitted that no fresh date
was fixed by the Enquiry Officer and he
proceeded exparte and submitted the report.
Sri Khare further urged that the petitioner's
reply and the affidavits of his witnesses,
which have been extracted in the enquiry
report, have not been adverted to by the
Enquiry Officer and he has simply recorded
his conclusion without any reason. Sri
Khare has placed the enquiry report before
the Court to demonstrate that the Enquiry
Officer has not adverted to any evidence
adduced by the petitioner and even the
documentary evidences which the petitioner
had produced have not been considered by
the Enquiry Officer. Lastly, he urged that
along with the petitioner there were five
other police officials who were deputed to
produce the prisoners in the Court but only
the petitioner has been picked out for the
punishment and no disciplinary proceeding
has been initiated against other police
officials, in whose custody the prisoners
were sent.
11.
Learned Standing Counsel
submits that the disciplinary proceeding has
been initiated under the provisions of the
Rules, 1991 and the procedure laid down
under the said Rules have been followed.
He further submits that the petitioner was
given full opportunity to produce his
witnesses and cross-examine the witnesses
of the department and the prisoners, who
have escaped, were in his custody.
12. I have considered the rival
submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
13. On 11th April, 2008 six
prisoners were to be produced before the
concerned Courts in criminal cases and
along with the petitioner five other police
officials including Head Constable and
Constables were accompanying the said
prisoners.
In
the
charge-sheet
the
allegation against the petitioner is that two
prisoners asked water from the petitioner
and when the petitioner opened the
window to provide them water, one of the
prisoners threw the powder of red chilli in
his eyes and taking advantage of the said
fact, they escaped from the police van.
The departmental witnesses, who were
produced against the petitioner, have
made a statement that they had gone to
the respective Courts to produce other
prisoners in different Courts. Only the
petitioner was there with two prisoners,
namely, Lala and Rakesh alias Lohare,
therefore, it was his responsibility to
guard the said prisoners but after throwing
the powder of red chilli in his eyes, they
escaped from his custody. Thus, they
supported
the
charge
against
the
petitioner. On 19th December, 2008 the
Enquiry Officer directed the petitioner to
produce his defence on 22nd December,
2008 at 11.00 A.M. The Enquiry Officer
has found that he waited the petitioner till
2.00 P.M. in the afternoon but when the
petitioner did not turn up, he proceeded to
attend his other duty and left the place.
However, it has been referred in the
enquiry report that on the same day the
petitioner had submitted some of the
affidavits, which have been extracted by
the Enquiry Officer in his report. It is also
clear that if the petitioner could not reach
within time on the date fixed i.e. 22nd
December, 2008, the Enquiry Officer in
2 All] Amar Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
619
all fairness ought to have fixed another date
for the petitioner. From the record it is
manifest that the petitioner has cooperated
in the departmental proceeding and he has
promptly submitted his reply to the chargesheet and also replied to the show cause
notice. Thus, there was no allegation against
the petitioner that he was adopting delaying
tactics in the departmental proceeding. In
view of the above, I find sufficient force in
the submission of Sri Khare that the enquiry
has vitiated on the ground of violation of
principles of natural justice as the petitioner
was not granted sufficient time to produce
his witnesses.
14.
Insofar as the submission of Sri
Khare that the reply and various documents
filed by the petitioner and the affidavits
filed by his witnesses have not been
adverted to by the Enquiry Officer is
concerned, it is also correct. A perusal of
the enquiry report would demonstrate that
the Enquiry Officer in his elaborate enquiry
report has simply extracted the chargesheet, reply submitted by the petitioner,
statements of departmental witnesses, crossexamination and the affidavits filed by the
petitioner's witnesses in defence. The
Enquiry Officer has totally failed to advert
to the affidavits and other reply of the
petitioner before recording a finding that the
petitioner is guilty of the charge. In fact, the
Enquiry Officer has only recorded his
conclusion, which is not supported by any
reason. The affidavits of the witnesses of
the petitioner and his reply indicate that the
petitioner alone was not present near the
police van but another Constable, namely,
Lal Singh, in whose custody one of the
prisoners was given, was standing there
near the vehicle and it was his duty to
produce the prisoner Lala, who also
escaped, but no disciplinary action has been
taken against the said constable by believing
his version that he had gone to collect the
warrant in the Court. The affidavits of the
petitioner's witnesses, which indicate that
the said constable was standing near the
police van, have been disbelieved without
adverting to those facts.
15. It is a trite law that the
disciplinary proceeding is a quasi-judicial
proceeding and the evidence led ought to
have been considered in a fair manner.
Ignoring the material evidence vitiates the
enquiry. The disciplinary authority should
arrive at its conclusions on the basis of the
evidence on record and the matter should
not be left in a suspicious state. The
Supreme Court in the case of Kuldeep
Singh v. Commissioner of Police and
others2 held as under:
"7. In Nand Kishore Prasad v. State
of Bihar3 it was held that the disciplinary
proceedings before a domestic tribunal
are of quasi-judicial character and,
therefore, it is necessary that the Tribunal
should arrive at its conclusions on the
basis of some evidence, that is to say,
such evidence which and that too, with
some degree of definiteness, points to the
guilt of the delinquent and does not leave
the matter in a suspicious state as mere
suspicion cannot take the place of proof
even in domestic enquiries. If, therefore,
there is no evidence to sustain the charges
framed against the delinquent, he cannot
be held to be guilty as in that event, the
findings recorded by the enquiry officer
would be perverse.
8. The findings recorded in a
domestic enquiry can be characterised as
perverse if it is shown that such findings
are not supported by any evidence on
record or are not based on the evidence
adduced by the parties or no reasonable
person could have come to those findings
620
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
on the basis of that evidence. This
principle was laid down by this Court in
State of A.P. v. Rama Rao4 in which the
question was whether the High Court
under Article 226 could interfere with the
findings recorded at the departmental
enquiry. This decision was followed in
Central Bank of India Ltd. v. Prakash
Chand Jain5 and Bharat Iron Works v.
Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel6. In Rajinder
Kumar Kindra v. Delhi Admn.7 it was
laid down that where the findings of
misconduct are based on no legal
evidence and the conclusion is one to
which no reasonable man could come, the
findings can be rejected as perverse. It
was also laid down that where a quasijudicial tribunal records findings based on
no legal evidence and the findings are its
mere ipse dixit or based on conjectures
and surmises, the enquiry suffers from the
additional infirmity of non-application of
mind and stands vitiated."
16. In Anil Kumar v. Presiding
Officer and others8 the Supreme Court
observed as under:
"5. We have extracted the charges
framed against the appellant. We have also
pointed out in clear terms the report of the
enquiry officer. It is well-settled that a
disciplinary enquiry has to be a quasijudicial enquiry held according to the
principles of natural justice and the enquiry
officer has a duty to act judicially. The
enquiry officer did not apply his mind to the
evidence. Save setting out the names of the
witnesses, he did not discuss the evidence.
He merely recorded his ipse dixit that the
charges are proved. He did not assign a
single reason why the evidence produced by
the appellant did not appeal to him or was
considered not creditworthy. He did not
permit a peep into his mind as to why the
evidence produced by the management
appealed to him in preference to the
evidence produced by the appellant. An
enquiry report in a quasi-judicial enquiry
must show the reasons for the conclusion. It
cannot be an ipse dixit of the enquiry
officer. It has to be speaking order in the
sense that the conclusion is supported by
reasons. This is too well-settled to be
supported by a precedent. In Madhya
Pradesh Industries Ltd. v. Union of India9,
this Court observed that a speaking order
will at best be a reasonable and at its worst
be at least a plausible one. The public
should not be deprived of this only
safeguard. Similarly in Mahabir Prasad
Santosh Kumar v. State of U.P.10, this
Court reiterated that satisfactory decision of
a disputed claim may be reached only if it
be supported by the most cogent reasons
that appealed to the authority. It should all
the more be so where the quasi-judicial
enquiry may result in deprivation of
livelihood or attach a stigma to the
character. In this case the enquiry report is
an order sheet which merely produces the
stage through which the enquiry passed. It
clearly disclosed a total non-application of
mind and it is this report on which the
General Manager acted in terminating the
service of the appellant. There could not
have been a more gross case of nonapplication of mind and it is such an enquiry
which has found favour with the Labour
Court and the High Court.
6. Where a disciplinary enquiry affects
the livelihood and is likely to cast a
stigma and it has to be held in accordance
with the principles of natural justice, the
minimum expectation is that the report
must be a reasoned one. The Court then
may not enter into the adequacy or
sufficiency of evidence. But where the
evidence is annexed to an order sheet and
2 All] Suresh Chandra Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
621
no corelation is established between the
two showing application of mind, we are
constrained to observe that it is not an
enquiry report at all. Therefore, there was
no enquiry in this case worth the name
and the order of termination based on
such
proceeding
disclosing
nonapplication
of
mind
would
be
unsustainable."
17. In respect of nature of
disciplinary proceedings the Supreme
Court in M.V. Bijlani v. Union of India
and others11 has observed as under:
"25. It is true that the jurisdiction of
the court in judicial review is limited.
Disciplinary proceedings, however, being
quasi-criminal in nature, there should be
some evidence to prove the charge.
Although the charges in a departmental
proceeding are not required to be proved
like a criminal trial i.e. beyond all
reasonable doubt, we cannot lose sight of
the fact that the enquiry officer performs a
quasi-judicial
function,
who
upon
analysing the documents must arrive at a
conclusion
that
there
had
been
a
preponderance of probability to prove the
charges on the basis of materials on
record. While doing so, he cannot take
into consideration any irrelevant fact. He
cannot refuse to consider the relevant
facts. He cannot shift the burden of proof.
He cannot reject the relevant testimony of
the witnesses only on the basis of
surmises and conjectures. He cannot
enquire into the allegations with which
the delinquent officer had not been
charged with."
18. I have perused the orders of the
appellate authority and the revisional
authority also. The petitioner has taken
the aforesaid grounds in his memo of
appeal and revision but his appeal and
revision have also been dismissed without
adverting to the said facts.
19. After careful consideration of
the matter, I am of the view that the
enquiry has vitiated on the ground of
violation of principles of natural justice
and
non-application
of
mind.
Accordingly,
the
dismissal
order,
appellate order and revisional order dated
29th January, 2009, 03rd February, 2010
and 27th November, 2010, as are
impugned in this writ petition, passed by
the fourth, third and second respondents
respectively,
are
quashed.
The
disciplinary authority is directed to
conduct a fresh enquiry from the stage
when the petitioner was denied the
opportunity. The fresh enquiry may be
concluded expeditiously.
20. The writ petition is, accordingly,
allowed.
21. No order as to costs.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.04.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH
BAGHEL, J.
C.M.W.P. No. 31663 of 2009
Suresh Chandra Pandey
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.K. Upadhyaya
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri A.K. Yadav, Sri Chandra
Narayan Tripathi