# Dashrath Singh v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2022) 6 ILRA 927
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-05-12
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 42698 of 2010
- **Bench:** Siddhartha Varma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dashrath-singh-v-state-of-u-p-48682
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

(A) Service Law - Dismissal from service -
The U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate
Ranks (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1991
- Rule 14 - Procedure for conducting
departmental proceedings.

Petitioner (constable) misbehaved with Station
Officer while he was drunk - complaint -
medical examination - suspended - preliminary
enquiry - no urine test or blood test conducted -
Appeal & revision dismissed.

HELD:-Report by Enquiry Officer become
erroneous in the absence of two tests. When
the Disciplinary Authority was punishing the
petitioner, it should have considered the fact
that the petitioner had not in any manner
indulged in any activity which could be termed
as "indiscipline". Impugned order quashed and
set aside. Petitioner entitled to all consequential
benefits.(Para - 6)

Writ Petition Allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

6 All. Dashrath Singh Vs. State of U.P.
927
extraneous considerations, (vide B. C.
Chaturvedi vs. Union of India - 1995 (6)
SCC
749,
Union
of
India
vs.
G.
Gunayuthan - 1997 (7) SCC 463, and Bank
of India vs. Degala Suryanarayana - 1999
(5) SCC 762, High Court of Judicature at
Bombay vs. Shahsi Kant S Patil - 2001 (1)
SCC 416)."

23. In view of the above facts, reasons
and case laws so cited by the respective
parties, this Court does not find any
infirmity or illegality in the impugned
inquiry report dated 28.09.2021 submitted
by
the
respondent
no.3,
Enquiry
Officer/Inspector/RPF/Noapara,
Metro
Railway, Kolkata (Annexure No.10 to the
writ petition). Therefore, this writ petitioner
is liable to dismissed being misconceived.

24. Accordingly, this writ petition is
dismissed being misconceived.

25. However, it is always open to the
disciplinary authority to proceed against the
petitioner strictly, in accordance with law.
----------
(2022)06ILR A927
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.

Writ-A No. 42698 of 2010

Dashrath Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri V.S. Chauhan, Sri Devesh Kumar, Sri
Dharmendra Singh, Sri Niraj Kumar Singh, Sri
Umesh Tripathi, Sri Utkarsh Malviya

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Arvind Kumar, Sri Vikram Bahadur
Yadav

(A) Service Law - Dismissal from service -
The U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate
Ranks (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1991
- Rule 14 - Procedure for conducting
departmental proceedings.

Petitioner (constable) misbehaved with Station
Officer while he was drunk - complaint -
medical examination - suspended - preliminary
enquiry - no urine test or blood test conducted -
Appeal & revision dismissed.

HELD:-Report by Enquiry Officer become
erroneous in the absence of two tests. When
the Disciplinary Authority was punishing the
petitioner, it should have considered the fact
that the petitioner had not in any manner
indulged in any activity which could be termed
as "indiscipline". Impugned order quashed and
set aside. Petitioner entitled to all consequential
benefits.(Para - 6)

Writ Petition Allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Bachubhai Hassanalli Karyani Vs St. of Maha.
, (1971) 3 SCC 930

2. Krishna Kumar Vs U.O.I. , Writ-A No.67355 of
2007

3. Shiv Raj Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors. ,Writ-A
No.2230 of 2014

4. Supreme Court in St. of Uttaranchal & ors. Vs
Kharak Singh , (2008) 8 SCC 236

(Delivered by Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma, J.)

1. Heard Sri Utkarsh Malviya, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vikram
Bahadur Yadav, learned counsel for the
respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed
against the order dated 31.10.2009 passed
by the Superintendent of Police, Lalitpur
928 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
dismissing the petitioner from service, the
order dated 31.1.2010 passed by the
Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jhansi
Range, Jhansi dismissing the Appeal and
the order dated 29.4.2010 passed by the
Additional Director General of Police
(Telecommunications),
Uttar
Pradesh,
Lucknow dismissing the Revision filed by
the petitioner.

3. The petitioner who was posted as a
Constable at Reserve Police Lines, Lalitpur
was allegedly found drunk on 20.6.2009. It
was alleged that while he was drunk, he
had misbehaved with the Station Officer Sri
Baljeet Singh. It had, still further, been
alleged that after a complaint about the
petitioner's drunkenness was made, a
medical examination was done and he was
suspended on 23.6.2009. A preliminary
enquiry was conducted and upon finding
that the allegations were prima facie
correct, enquiry under Rule 14 of the U.P.
Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks
(Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1991 was
conducted. The Enquiry Officer, upon
finding that the petitioner was guilty of
misbehaviour
while
he
was
drunk,
submitted his enquiry report on 30.6.2009.
In the Preliminary Enquiry report the
Enquiry Officer had also given a finding
that the petitioner was to be punished with
a major penalty. Thereafter under Rule
14(1) of the Rules, the Enquiry Officer
issued a charge sheet to the petitioner on
30.7.2009 charging him with the allegation
that on 20.6.2009 after consuming liquor,
he had misbehaved with the Station Officer.
The petitioner replied to the charges on
10.8.2009 and thereafter upon completing
the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer on
3.10.2009 submitted his enquiry report
again with a recommendation for a major
penalty. The Disciplinary Authority i.e. the
Superintendent of Police, Lalitpur upon
receiving the enquiry report, issued a showcause notice on 9.9.2009 to the petitioner to
submit his reply. The petitioner submitted a
detailed reply on 26.10.2009 to the show
cause notice with a request to drop all
proceedings
against
the
petitioner.
Thereafter on 31.10.2009, an order of
punishment
was
passed
by
the
Superintendent of Police, Lalitpur whereby
the petitioner was dismissed from service.
The petitioner against the order dated
31.1.2010 filed an appeal before the
Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jhansi
Range, Jhansi which came to be dismissed
on 31.1.2010. Thereafter the Revision filed
by the petitioner against the order dated
31.1.2010 also met the same fate on
29.4.2010. This order was passed by the
Additional Director General of Police
(Telecommunications),
Uttar
Pradesh,
Lucknow. Aggrieved thereof the petitioner
has filed the instant writ petition.

4. Broadly, the petitioner has made
the following submissions:

(i) There was no conclusive medical
examination
done
on
the
petitioner.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner
submitted that unless a proper urine test or
a blood test was done, the fact that the
petitioner had consumed alcohol and had
thereafter in an inebriated state misbehaved
with the Station Officer could not be
conclusively proved. Learned counsel, to
bolster his case, relied upon a decision of
the
Supreme
Court
in
Bachubhai
Hassanalli
Karyani
vs.
State
of
Maharashtra : (1971) 3 SCC 930 and the
judgments of this Court in Krishna Kumar
vs. Union of India (Writ-A No.67355 of
2007 decided by order dated 15.5.2019)
and in Shiv Raj singh vs. State of U.P. &
Ors. (Writ-A No.2230 of 2014 decided by
order dated 28.3.2018).
6 All. Dashrath Singh Vs. State of U.P.
929

(ii) Learned counsel for the petitioner
further submitted that the medical report was
prepared under the influence of the Station
Officer who was physically present at the
hospital despite the fact that his presence was
not required at all and, therefore, the
examining doctor namely Doctor Arjun Singh
was under the influence of his presence.

(iii)
The
Enquiry
Officer
upon
completing the enquiry had given his opinion
with regard to the fact as to what punishment
the petitioner had to be given. Learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
job of the Enquiry Officer came to an end
upon finding that the petitioner was guilty of
the charge. It was the Disciplinary Authority
which was required to look into the
punishment which was to be given. Learned
counsel for the petitioner further submitted
that the Disciplinary Authority had to also,
while imposing punishment, look into the
surrounding circumstances i.e. how long the
petitioner had served and how had his
conduct been in the past. In the instant case,
learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner was never punished ever
before and this fact was to be looked into by
the Disciplinary Authority. To bolster his
case, learned counsel for the petitioner has
relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court
in State of Uttaranchal & Ors. vs. Kharak
Singh : (2008) 8 SCC 236.

(iv) Learned counsel for the petitioner
further submitted that the order of dismissal
was not the only order which could have been
passed by the Disciplinary Authority. A lesser
punishment could also have sufficed and the
Disciplinary Authority could have considered
awarding a lesser punishment. Learned
counsel further submitted that the enquiry
was conducted in a slipshod manner and no
witness of the incident was ever examined.

5.

Learned
Standing
Counsel,
however, opposed the writ petition and
submitted that the petitioner was guilty of
indiscipline as he had entered into an
argument with the Station Officer in an
inebriated state and since the police force
was a disciplined force, the petitioner was
rightly punished.

6. Having considered the submissions
raised by learned counsel for the parties,
the Court is of the view that the conclusion
which the Enquiry Officer had arrived at
about the drunkenness of the petitioner was
definitely erroneous. In the instant case
neither was any urine test done nor was any
blood test conducted at that point of time.
The finding that the petitioner was in a
drunken state which was arrived at simply
because the petitioner was smelling of
alcohol was an absolutely erroneous
decision on the part of the Enquiry Officer.
Resultantly, the enquiry itself which was
based on a wrong input, was absolutely
baseless. The moment an allegation was
made with regard to drunkenness, either a
urine test ought to have taken place or a
blood test ought to have been conducted. In
the absence of these two tests, the report by
the Enquiry Officer become erroneous. Still
further, the Court finds that when the
Disciplinary Authority was punishing the
petitioner, it should have considered the
fact that the petitioner had not in any
manner indulged in any activity which
could be termed as "indiscipline".

7. Under such circumstances, the
Court is of the view that the orders
impugned cannot be sustained in the eyes
of
law.
Therefore,
the
order
dated
31.10.2009 passed by the Superintendent of
Police, Lalitpur; the order dated 31.1.2010
passed by the Deputy Inspector General of
Police, Jhansi Range, Jhansi and the order
dated 29.4.2010 passed by the Additional
Director
General
of
Police
930 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(Telecommunications),
Uttar
Pradesh,
Lucknow are quashed and are set aside.
The petitioner shall be entitled to all
consequential benefits.

8. The writ petition, accordingly,
stands allowed.
----------
(2022)06ILR A930
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 10.06.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Writ-A No. 3747 of 2022

UP Judicial Services Asso. & Ors.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Varadraj Shreedutt Ojha, Purushottam Awasthi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Gaurav Mehrotra

(A) Service Law - Maintainability of Writ -
The U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rule 1975
- Rule 5(a), 6 (ii) , 20(2) , 22(1), 22 (3) -
source of recruitment - Quota - Writ of
Mandamus
can
be
claimed
as
a
consequential relief to issuance of a Writ
of Certiorari - absence of a prior demand
and its refusal by the authority concerned
would
not
be
a
bar
against
the
maintainability of the Writ Petition - scope
of interference by Court - writ of Certiorari
cannot be issued where there can be two
opinions about the correctness of the
decision.(Para -17,25)

Petitioners seeking implementation of directions
- issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court contained in
paragraph 28 (1) (a) of judgment (All India
Judges Association and other Vs U.O.I ) - 50 per
cent by promotion from amongst Civil Judges
(Senior Division) - on basis of principle of meritcum-seniority and passing a suitability test.
(Para -19,29)

(B) Maintainability of petition - issuance
of writ of mandamus - pre-condition -
person seeking issuance of a writ should
have first approached the authority
concerned by making a demand of
redressal of his grievances by submitting
a suitable representation
- he can
approach this Court only after the
demand is refused or no decision is
taken in respect of the demand -
petitioner approached Court directly by filing
a writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India - seeking issuance of a
writ of mandamus without submitting any
representation
for
redressal
of
their
grievances

-

writ
petition
not
maintainable.(Para -15)

HELD:-In view of prohibition contained in
paragraph 40 of the judgment ( All India Judges
Association and other Vs U.O.I ), Court
restrained from entertaining the proceedings for
implementation of directions given in the
judgment. Writ petition not maintainable. (Para
- 29,30)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Umesh Chand Vinod Kumar & ors. Vs Krishi
Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Bharthana & anr. , AIR
1984 All 46

2. All India Judges' Association & ors. Vs U.O.I.
& ors., (2002) 4 SCC 247

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Sandeep Dixit and Sri.
Sanjay Bhasin, Senior Advocates assisted
by Sri V. S. Ojha, Sri. Amarjeet Singh
Yadav and Sri Purushottam Advocates, the
learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri.
Rajesh Tiwari, the learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for the State-respondent
and Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, the learned