# Chhotey Lal Dubey v. State of U.P. through Secy. Home and others

- **Citation:** (2011) 3 ILRA 1450
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-12-07
- **Bench:** Rakesh Tiwari, Dinesh Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/chhotey-lal-dubey-v-state-of-u-p-through-secy-home-and-others-42077
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226punishment withholding integrity for one
year-petitioner working as constable in
civil
police-charged
for
permitting
unauthorized traveling-whole on duty
along with six member of Escort Policeno specific allegation against individual
3 All] Chhotey Lal Dubey V. State of U.P. through Secy. Home and others
1451
role-DIG by order dated 18.05.1994allow
the
representation
by
exhonorating
a
Sub-Inspector
and
Constable but rejected the claim of
Petition-Tribunal
also
declined
to
interfere-no
differentiating
circumstances
brought
on
recordfor
giving different treatment-punishment
based upon arbitrary illegal preliminary
enquiry-held-not sustainable.

Held: Para 17

In view of the fact that two persons
namely, Sri Shyamdev and Sri Chandrika
Prasad,
Sub-Inspector
and
Head
Constable have been exonerated from
the charge and their integrity has been
directed to be certified by the Deputy
Inspector General of Police, Railways,
Allahabad and that no differentiating
circumstances had brought on record by
the respondents for giving a different
treatment in punishment on basis of an
illegal and arbitrary preliminary enquiry
conducted in unfair manner against the
principles of natural justice to the
petitioner, we quash the impugned order
dated 7.3.2002 passed by respondent
no.2 and the orders dated 27.4.1995 and
18.5.1994 passed by the respondents.

## Text

1450 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
substantiated, such direction ought not to be
issued. There is no presumption that the
executive authorities including Police shall
not act strictly in accordance with law
which includes the statutory law as well as
the judicial orders issued by Court and in
particular the Apex Court. We cannot
presume that any authority will be acting
illegally unless a specific case is pleaded
and substantiated before this Court. The
presumption lies in favour of executive
authorities
that
they
are
acting
in
accordance
with
law
unless
shown
otherwise. It is true that at ground level,
scenario has deteriorated to some extent and
time and again the matters have come
wherein the highhandedness, brutality and
other illegal acts of Police authorities have
been reported to the Courts and the Courts
have also passed stern appropriate orders
therein but that does not mean that the same
would form a rule of practice in every case
for such presumption.

6. It is also noteworthy to mention that
mere lodging of first information report
does not mean that a person has to be
arrested
necessarily
unless
the
circumstances so justify and the Police
authorities have appropriate and genuine
reasons for the same. The people's liberty is
of paramount importance and cannot be
curtailed merely for the reason that a first
information report regarding commission of
an offence has been lodged since for the
purpose of arrest, different conditions are
required to exist before any Police officer
shall proceed to arrest any person. We have
no hesitation in saying that in a suitable and
appropriate case, if any illegality on the part
of any Police officer is brought out before
this Court, we shall not hesitate in taking
appropriate stern action in the matter but
that would not mean that in every case in a
routine manner, this Court should/shall pass
order staying arrest of the person accused in
a criminal case.

7. In our view, in this particular case
there is no such pleading substantiated with
appropriate material that any Police officer
is acting illegally so as to warrant any
protection/direction
from
this
Court.
However, we make it clear that in case any
authority acts illegally, it is always open to
petitioners to approach appropriate Forum
including
this
Court
for
appropriate
protection but no mandamus at this stage
ought be issued particularly when the first
information report shows commission of an
offence warranting no interference.

8. With the aforesaid observation, the
writ petition is dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.12.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI,J.
THE HON'BLE DINESH GUPTA,J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 22220 of 2002

Chhotey Lal Dubey

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. through Secy. Home and
others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Madhusudan Dikshit

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226punishment withholding integrity for one
year-petitioner working as constable in
civil
police-charged
for
permitting
unauthorized traveling-whole on duty
along with six member of Escort Policeno specific allegation against individual
3 All] Chhotey Lal Dubey V. State of U.P. through Secy. Home and others
1451
role-DIG by order dated 18.05.1994allow
the
representation
by
exhonorating
a
Sub-Inspector
and
Constable but rejected the claim of
Petition-Tribunal
also
declined
to
interfere-no
differentiating
circumstances
brought
on
recordfor
giving different treatment-punishment
based upon arbitrary illegal preliminary
enquiry-held-not sustainable.

Held: Para 17

In view of the fact that two persons
namely, Sri Shyamdev and Sri Chandrika
Prasad,
Sub-Inspector
and
Head
Constable have been exonerated from
the charge and their integrity has been
directed to be certified by the Deputy
Inspector General of Police, Railways,
Allahabad and that no differentiating
circumstances had brought on record by
the respondents for giving a different
treatment in punishment on basis of an
illegal and arbitrary preliminary enquiry
conducted in unfair manner against the
principles of natural justice to the
petitioner, we quash the impugned order
dated 7.3.2002 passed by respondent
no.2 and the orders dated 27.4.1995 and
18.5.1994 passed by the respondents.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

2. This writ petition has been filed
challenging the validity and correctness of
the impugned order dated 7.3.2002 passed
by the Member, U.P. State Public
Services Tribunal, Lucknow, appended as
Annexure-2 to the writ petition as well as
the order dated 27.4.1995 passed by the
Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Railways,
Allahabad,
appended
as
Annexure-4 to the writ petition. The
petitioner also challenges the order of
punishment dated 18.5.94 by which his
integrity has been withheld.

3. Brief facts of the case as appears
from the record are that the petitioner is
serving as constable in civil police. He
along with six members of the Police
Escort was charged for permitting two
persons to travel in Train no. 2418 Down
Prayagraj Express while they were on
duty as GRP Escort on the train. After
preliminary enquiry a show cause notice
dated 18.5.1994 was issued to all the six
persons in the escort including a SubInspector and a Head Constable. They
were
found
guilty
and
awarded
punishment
of
withholding
integrity
certificate for one year. It appears from
the charges levelled against all the six
persons that there was no specific
allegation against any one of them.

4. It also appears from the record
that Sri Shyamdev, Sub-Inspector and Sri
Chandrika
Prasad,
Head
Constable
preferred a representation against the
order dated 18.5.1994 challenging the
findings of the preliminary enquiry by
pleading not guilty. The representation
was decided by the Deputy Inspector
General of Police, Railways, Allahabad in
which
two
aforesaid
persons
were
exonerated from the charge vide order
dated 20.5.1995. The petitioner also
preferred a representation against the
order withholding of integrity which was
rejected vide order dated 27.4.1995 by the
Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Railways,
Allahabad
holding
the
petitioner guilty while on the same facts
the other two persons namely, Sri
Shyamdev and Chandrika Prasad were
exonerated. The petitioner, who was
constable in the aforesaid escort also
moved the U.P. State Public Services
Tribunal, Lucknow against the order
dated 18.5.1994 by preferring Claim
Petition No. 1290 of 1996. It was rejected
1452 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
vide impugned order dated 7.3.2002
passed by the Member (Administrative),
State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow.

5. The impugned orders are assailed
on the ground that the Tribunal has failed
to consider the submissions made on
behalf of the petitioner and the orders
passed by respondent nos. 2,3 and 4 are
wholly illegal, arbitrary, contrary to
record and are liable to be quashed by this
Court.

6. According to the learned counsel
for the petitioner, it is settled law that
there can be no discrimination in
punishing the persons who have been
charged for the same offence arising from
same incident and found guilty for it,
therefore, the petitioner could not have
been discriminated by withholding of his
integrity with Sri Shyamdev and Sri
Chandrika Prasad, the Sub-Inspector and
Head Constable who had been exonerated
by the same authority particularly in view
of the fact that none of the six persons in
the escort had been mentioned by the
Checking Staff of having taken any bribe
or committing any illegality.

7. It is submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that once it is
found that all the six persons were
involved in the same commission of
offence then discrimination in the matter
of awarding punishment cannot be
sustained. It is stated that after the
punishment was awarded the petitioner
moved
an
application
before
the
Superintendent
of
Police,
Railways,
Allahabad regarding payment of his
bonus for the years 1993-94 and 1994-95
which was not given till date on the
ground of punishment having been
awarded to him.

8. Learned Standing counsel has
supported the judgment of the Tribunal by
stating that the Tribunal has rightly held
that the show cause notice regarding
awarding the punishment of misconduct
and other show cause notice regarding
withholding of integrity certificate are
separate, hence mere withdrawal of show
cause notice regarding awarding the
punishment of misconduct will not be
enough to withdraw the other show cause
notice, though the aforesaid two show
cause notices are based on same facts.

9. After hearing learned counsel for
the parties and on perusal of the record we
find that in the order dated 20.5.1995,
appended as Annexure-1 to the writ
petition, certifying the integrity and
exonerating
Sri
Shyamdev
and
Sri
Chandrika Prasad it has been specifically
stated that no berth was allotted for the
GRP escort in the Coach B-1 in which the
Escort was travelling and wherein two
unauthorized persons had been found
travelling, hence when no berth was
allotted by the Railways to the GRP
escort in the said Coach. The order dated
20th May, 1995 reads thus:-

^^vkns'k

mi fu0 ';ke nso o gsM dka0 778 pfUnzdk
izlkn }kjk izsf"kr izR;kosnu tks iqfyl v/kh{kd jsyos]
bykgkckn ds vkns'k la[;k% n&12@94 fnukad
18&5&94 ds fo:) gS ftlds }kjk izfrosnd dk o"kZ
1993 dk rRo fu"Bk izek.k i= jksds tkus dk vkns'k
ikfjr fd;k x;k gS] dk voyksdu fd;kA

la{ksi esa izdj.k dk o`rkUr ;g gS fd o"kZ 1993
esa tc izfrosnd crkSj gsM0 dka0 lh0Mh0bZ0 dsUnz
bykgkckn esa fu;qDr Fkk rks fnukad 2&9&93 dks
mldh fM~;wVh V~su la[;k 2417 vi ,oa 2418 Mkmu
iz;kx jkt ,Dlizsl ij nsu ,LdksVZ ikVhZ ds lkFk
yxk;h x;h FkhA jsyos foHkkx ds Jh ds0lh of'k"B
lh0Vh0vkbZ o Jh euksgj yky fujh{kd us vius
vius LVkQ ds lkFk fnukad 3@4&9&93 dks V~su
3 All] Chhotey Lal Dubey V. State of U.P. through Secy. Home and others
1453
la[;k 2418 Mkmu iz;kx jkt ,Dlizsl dks psfdax
dh rks dksp ua0 ,l 6 ds cFkZ ua0 68 ij jktsUnz
dqekj uke ;k=h f}rh; Js.kh dk fVd fy;s gq;s
vukf/kd`r :i ls o"kZ ij ysVk ik;k x;k tks jsyos
foHkkx }kjk th0vkj0ih0 ,DdksVZ ikVhZ dks vkcafVr
dh x;h FkhA iwNus ij mlus crk;k fd th0vkj0ih0
okyks dks 40 :i;s nsdj ysVk gwWaA blds vfrfjDr
ftl dksp esa ,e0vks0ih0 LFkkfir dh x;h Fkh mlesa
fo'o ukFk uke dk ,d O;fDr fcuk fVdV ;k=k
djrs gq;s idM+k x;kA ftlus crk;k fd og
th0vkj0ih0 ,LdksVZ okyks ds lkFk py jgk gSA
psfdax LVkQ }kjk nksuksa O;fDr;ksa dks pktZ fd;k
x;kA

f'kdk;r izkIr gksus ij lanfHkZr izdj.k dh
tkap iqfyl mik/kh{kd jsyos bykgkckn }kjk
lEikfnr dh x;h ftUgksaus tkap ls izfrosnd dks
nks"kh ik;kA QyLo:i izfrosnd dk lR;fu"Bk izek.k
i= l{ke vf/kdkjh }kjk jksds tkus dk vkns'k ikfjr
fd;k x;kA ikfjr vkns'k ls {kqC/k gksdj izfrosnd us
izLrqr izR;kosnu esjs fopkjkFkZ izsf"kr fd;k gSA

eSaus izfrosnd }kjk izLrq izR;kosnu ml ij
iqfyl v/kh{kd jsyos bykgkckn }kjk nh x;h izLrj
okj fVIi.kh rFkk i=koyh ij miyC/k vfHkys[kksa dk
lE;d ifj'khyu fd;kA

naM i=koyh ij miyC/k vfHkys[kksa ,oa
izkjfEHkd tkap vk[;k ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd
izfrosnd ij jsyos foHkkx }kjk Hkz"Vkpkj dk dksbZ
vkjksi ugha yxk;k x;k gS tks vkjksi yxk x;s gSa og
dsoy vkjf{k;ksa ij gSA

tgka rd ,l0vkj0 dksp esa ,e0vks0ih0
LFkkfir fd;s tkus dk iz'u gS vfHkys[kksa ds
voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd izfrosnd ds iwoZ ,oa
i'pkr Hkh tc rd fd Li"V vkns'k ,l ,y vkj
dkspksa esa th vkj ih ,e vks ih LFkkfir u fd;s tkus
ds vkns'k ikfjr gq;s rc rd blh dksp esa ,e vks ih
LFkkfir dh tkrh jgh vr% ,l,yvkj dksp esa ,e
vksih LFkkfir fd;s tkus gsrq izfrosnd ek= dks gh
nks"kh ugha Bgjk;k tk ldrk gSA

vfHkys[kksa ds voyksdu ls ;g Hkh Li"v gS fd
jsyos foHkkx }kjk Fkzh fV;j dksp esa thvkj ih
,LdksVZ ikVhZ dks dksbZ cFkZ fyf[kr :i ls vkcafVr
ugha dh x;h Fkh vkSj u gh bl lEcU/k esa dksbZ
vkns'k gh fuxZr fd;s x;sA

mijksDr of.kZr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa izfrosnd dk
o"kZ 1993 dk lR; fu"Bk izek.k i= jksds tkus dk
dksbZ vkSfpR; miyC/k ugha gS ,slh fLFkfr esa izfrosnd
ds izR;kosnu dks Lohdkj fd;s tkus ds vfrfjDr vkSj
dksbZ fodYi ugha gSA

izfrosnd ds izR;kosnu dks ,rn~}kjk Lohdkj
djrs gq;s iqfyl v/kh{kd jsyos bykgkckn }kjk ikfjr
iz'uxr vkns'k dks fujLr fd;k tkrk gS vkSj ;g Hkh
vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd iqfyl v/kh{kd jsyos
bykgkckn izfrosnd dh o"kZ 1993 dh lR; fu"Bk
izekf.kr djsaA

g0v0
1⁄4,p0ih0feJk1⁄2
iqfyl mi egkfujh{kd jsyos
bykgkcknA**

10. In the circumstances above,
there was no occasion for them to allow
any other person to sleep on the said berth
alleged to have been allotted to them.
Consequently, the question of payment
for the berth also does not arise and the
finding in this regard in the impugned
order is illegal and against the record.
Annexure-1 to the writ petition shows that
when Train No. 2418 Down Prayagraj
Express was checked by the Checking
Staff it was found that in Coach No. S-6
one Rajendra Kumar was sleeping on
berth no. 68 who was having ticket of
second
class.
Another
person
Sri
Vishwanath was found to be travelling
without ticket. Sri Rajendra Kumar has
stated before the Checking Staff that he
has been allowed to sleep on a berth by
some GRP constables by paying Rs.40/-
whereas Sri Vishwanath has stated that he
was along with the GRP Escort. On the
complaint aforesaid two persons who
were
found
to
be
travelling
unauthorizedly in the coach a preliminary
enquiry appears to have been held by the
Deputy
Superintendent
of
Police,
Railways, Allahabad in which he found
all the persons to be guilty of charge.
1454 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011

11. A further perusal of Annexure-1
to the writ petition shows that no berth
was allotted to the GRP Escort. Therefore,
the contention of learned counsel for the
petitioner
is
that
in
the
aforesaid
circumstances it cannot be said that the
petitioner or any other member of the
Escort team had allowed him to sleep on a
berth
by
taking
bribe
of
Rs.40/-.
Moreover,
it
appears
that
the
Superintendent
of
Police,
Railways,
Allahabad
has
given
credence
and
weightage to the statements of two
aforesaid
persons
who
were
unauthorizedly travelling in the train
which was not just and proper as they
have made this statement to save their
own skin and in any case statement of
such culprit/offender of law ought not to
have been given credence unless and until
there existed incorrigible evidence against
the accused. Even the person who has
been given berth was neither named nor
recognized by them.

12. It further appears from the
record
that
during
departmental
proceedings the petitioner was neither
permitted
to
cross-examine
the
complainant nor he was afforded any
opportunity to submit documents in his
favour as punishment has been awarded to
the petitioner on basis of a preliminary
enquiry and not a departmental enquiry ,
therefore, the punishment imposed upon
the petitioner suffers from arbitrariness in
a very arbitrary manner. The contention
of learned counsel for the petitioner that if
any complaint has been made and
preliminary enquiry was conducted then a
copy of said enquiry report ought to have
been supplied to the petitioner has force,
hence the enquiry on the basis of which
the petitioner has been punished can not
be said to have been conducted in a
proper manner.

13. The record speaks that SubInspector and Head Constable of the GRP
Escort were let off on their representation
and there was neither any differentiating
circumstances mentioned in the charge
against all the six persons for different
treatment nor any one of them named was
identified by the complainant of having
committed the alleged misconduct for
which they were charged. The order of
punishment to the petitioner in the
aforesaid circumstances appears to be
discriminated.

14. In paragraph nos. 9 and 10 of the
judgment the Tribunal has not given any
reason as to why it was not unable to
agree with the contention of the petitioner
for not following the procedure and
giving of opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner in defence and why withholding
of integrity certificate did not amount to
punishment particularly when bonus and
other benefits were not given to the
petitioner till date on the ground that his
integrity had been withheld pursuant to a
preliminary enquiry conducted against all
cannons of the principles of natural
justice. Paragraph nos. 9 and 10 of the
judgment read thus:-

"9. It was also argued that the
impugned order contained in annexure-1
is a non speaking order. I have gone
through the impugned order and I find
that the Punishing Authority has given
cogent
reason
for
coming
to
the
conclusion that the integrity of the
petitioner is doubtful. In my opinion, this
is a speaking order and no interference is
required in this order.
3 All] Chhotey Lal Dubey V. State of U.P. through Secy. Home and others
1455

10. It was further argued on behalf of
the petitioner that integrity certificate has
been withheld by way of punishment and
as such the procedure prescribed for
giving punishment order should have
been followed. I am unable to agree with
the contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioner. I am of the opinion that
withholding of integrity certificate is not a
punishment and there appears to be no
irregularity or illegality in this case in
passing the impugned order. It is apparent
from the perusal of the record that the
show cause notice was issued before
withholding the integrity certificate of the
petitioner and his explanation was duly
considered by the Punishing authority."

15.

Sri
H.P.
Mishra,Deputy
Inspector General of Police, Railways,
Allahabad,
who
has
rejected
the
representation of the petitioner appended
as Annexure-4 to the writ petition( which
was Annexure-1 in the claim petition
before the Tribunal) and had allowed the
representation of Sub-Inspector and Head
Constable on the same facts arising out of
the same incident, has also not given any
facts which may be different in the case
set up in the two representations one by
the Sub-Inspector and Head Constable
and the other by the petitioner. The
reasons
given
while
rejecting
the
representation of the petitioner are thus:-

^^izfrosnd dk izFke rdZ ekU; ugha gS D;ksafd
izkjfEHkd tkap vk[;k ds e/; jsyos ds psfdax LVkQ
ds dFkuksa ls Li"V gS fd th vkj ih ds flikgh us
40@& fy;k Fkk ftlus :i;k okil ykSVk fn;k
vr% izfrosnd ds bl rdZ esa dksbZ cy ugha gSA

izfrosnd dk f}rh; rdZ ekU; ugha gS D;ksafd
D;ksafd
D;ksafd
D;ksafd
izkjfEHkd tkap vk[
izkjfEHkd tkap vk[
izkjfEHkd tkap vk[
izkjfEHkd tkap vk[;k ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd
;k ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd
;k ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd
;k ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd
psfdax dkuiqj ls bykgkckn ds dksp esa dh x;h FkhA
psfdax dkuiqj ls bykgkckn ds dksp esa dh x;h FkhA
psfdax dkuiqj ls bykgkckn ds dksp esa dh x;h FkhA
psfdax dkuiqj ls bykgkckn ds dksp esa dh x;h FkhA
vr% izfrosnd ds bl rdZ esa dksbZ cy ugha gSA
vr% izfrosnd ds bl rdZ esa dksbZ cy ugha gSA
vr% izfrosnd ds bl rdZ esa dksbZ cy ugha gSA
vr% izfrosnd ds bl rdZ esa dksbZ cy ugha gSA

izfrosnd dk r`rh; rdZ ekU; ugha gS D;ksafd
tkap ls :i;k ysus vkSj okil djus dk rF;
izekf.kr ik;k x;k vr% izfrosnd ds bl rdZ esa dksbZ
cy ugha gSA

izfrosnd dk prqFkZ rd ekU; ugha gS D;ksafd
lUnfHkZr izdj.k esa izkjfEHkd tkap dh x;h gS tks naM
i=koyh ij miyC/k gS vr% izfrosnd ds bl rdZ esa
esa dksbZ cy ugha gSA

izfrosnd dk ikapok rd ekU; ugha gS D;ksafd
izkjfEHkd tkap ls jsyos foHkkx }kjk psfdax fd;k
tkuk vkSj ;kf=;ksa dks voS/k :i ls ;k=k djrs gq;s
idMk tkuk izekf.kr ik;k x;k gS fd ,slh fLFkfr esa
,slh fLFkfr esa
,slh fLFkfr esa
,slh fLFkfr esa
psfdax LVkQ ds dFkuksa esa fHkUurk ls izfrosnd dks
psfdax LVkQ ds dFkuksa esa fHkUurk ls izfrosnd dks
psfdax LVkQ ds dFkuksa esa fHkUurk ls izfrosnd dks
psfdax LVkQ ds dFkuksa esa fHkUurk ls izfrosnd dks
dksbZ ykHk izkIr ugha gksrk gS D;ksafd le; chr tkus
dksbZ ykHk izkIr ugha gksrk gS D;ksafd le; chr tkus
dksbZ ykHk izkIr ugha gksrk gS D;ksafd le; chr tkus
dksbZ ykHk izkIr ugha gksrk gS D;ksafd le; chr tkus
ds dkj.k vkSj ;knnk'r dh deh ds
ds dkj.k vkSj ;knnk'r dh deh ds
ds dkj.k vkSj ;knnk'r dh deh ds
ds dkj.k vkSj ;knnk'r dh deh ds dkj.k fHkUurk
 dkj.k fHkUurk
 dkj.k fHkUurk
 dkj.k fHkUurk
LokHkkfod gSA vr% izfrosnd ds bl rdZ esa dksbZ cy
LokHkkfod gSA vr% izfrosnd ds bl rdZ esa dksbZ cy
LokHkkfod gSA vr% izfrosnd ds bl rdZ esa dksbZ cy
LokHkkfod gSA vr% izfrosnd ds bl rdZ esa dksbZ cy
ugha gSA
ugha gSA
ugha gSA
ugha gSA

izfrosnd us vius izR;kosnu esa fdlh vU;
egRoiw.kZ fcUnqvksa dk vkSj esjk /;ku vkdf"kZr ugha
fd;k gS tks bl Lrj ij esjs }kjk fopkj.kh; gks vkSj
ftlls ikfjr vkns'k voS/k gksrk gksA

mijksDr of.kZr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa izfrosnd ds
izR;kosnu esa dksbZ cy ugha gS vkSj vLohd`r fd;s
tkus ;ksX; gSA

izfrosnd ds izR;kosnu dks ,rn~}kjk vLohd`r
fd;k tkrk gSA

g0v0
1⁄4,p0 ih0 feJ1⁄2
iqfyl mi egkfujh{kd jsyos
bykgkcknA**

16. A perusal of the rejection of the
representation of the petitioner also shows
that nobody has been named as to who
has returned the money. Merely because
some persons have been found by the
Checking Staff to be unauthorizedly
travelling in the coach who claimed that
they have been given berth allotted to
GRP Escort on payment of money would
not give any benefit to the department as
it is apparent from record that no berth
1456 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
will be reserved/allotted to GRP Staff on
escort
duty.
The
benefit
in
the
circumstances, ought to have been given
to the members of the GRP Escort who
were neither named nor there was any
evidence that they were paid money or
they had permitted any unauthorized
person to travel in the coach. In fact it is
the duty of the Checking staff to check the
tickets and not the GRP Escort, therefore,
variance in the statement was to the
benefit of the petitioner and other
members of the Escort.

17. In view of the fact that two
persons namely, Sri Shyamdev and Sri
Chandrika Prasad, Sub-Inspector and Head
Constable have been exonerated from the
charge and their integrity has been directed
to be certified by the Deputy Inspector
General of Police, Railways, Allahabad
and that no differentiating circumstances
had brought on record by the respondents
for giving a different treatment in
punishment on basis of an illegal and
arbitrary preliminary enquiry conducted in
unfair manner against the principles of
natural justice to the petitioner, we quash
the impugned order dated 7.3.2002 passed
by respondent no.2 and the orders dated
27.4.1995 and 18.5.1994 passed by the
respondents.

18. For the reasons stated above, the
writ petition is allowed. We accordingly,
direct the authorities concerned to make
payment of bonus with interest as well as
to certify the integrity of the petitioner
which has been withheld. No order as to
costs.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.12.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE KRISHNA MURARI, J. )

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22407 1995

Deena Nath Shukla

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Inspector General PAC, Western Zone,
Moradabad and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava
Sri Swarn Kumar Srivastava
Sri Adaarsh Bhushan
Sri P.C. Srivastava
Sri Ashok Khare
Sri Siddharth Khare

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

U.P.
Temporary
Govt.
Servant
(Termination of Service) Rules 1975 read
with U.P. Provincial Armed Constabulary
Act 1948-Section 5-U.P. Police Act meant
applicable-Termination
of
Service
of
Police
Constable
during
probation
period-exercising
power
under
Rule
1975-held
without
jurisdiction-apart
from
that
procedure
given
under
regulation 541-not followed-termination
order-not sustainable quashed.

Held: Para 10 and 12

In view of the law settled by the decision
of the Apex Court and the Full Bench of
this
Court,
the
impugned
order
terminating the services of the petitioner
in
purported
exercise
of
powers
conferred by 1975 Rules is illegal and
without jurisdiction as the provisions of
the said Act are not applicable in the
case of the petitioner.

There is no averment in the counter
affidavit filed by the respondents to