# Dropal Singh v. N.P.C.I. Ltd. & another

- **Citation:** (1999) 1 ILRA 84
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 1998-07-02
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dropal-singh-v-n-p-c-i-ltd-another-39122
- **Pages:** 4

## Text

84 THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [1999
By the Court

1. Heard Sri Mahesh Gautam for the petitioner and Sri Piyush
Agarwal holding the brief of Sri V.R. Agarwal for the respondent.

2. The petitioner had been appointed as stipendary trainee by
the respondent but that appointment has been cancelled by the
impugned order dated 28.4.98 annexure-1 to the writ petition on the
ground that the petitioner did not disclose his higher qualification of
B.Sc. Thus the ground for cancelling the appointment is that he is
over qualified.

3. In similar writ petition No. 15696 of 1998 Jitendra Sharma
V. Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited and another this
court quashed the impugned order by its judgment dated 13.8.98. In
that case also the appointment had been cancelled on the ground that
the petitioner was over qualified, and this court had held that of a
person's appointment can be cancelled if he is under-qualified but
not on the ground that he is over qualified, rather the respondent
should have given weightage to the fact that the petitioner had got
higher qualification.

4. Following the said decision, this petition is allowed. The
impugned order dated 28.4.98 is quashed.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 6. 3+$8-'$5 -
7+( +21·%/( 6. 3+$8-'$5 -
&ULPLQDO 0LVF $SSOLFDWLRQ 1R RI
5DJKXYDQVK .XPDU 0LVUD
«$SSOLFDQW
9HUVXV
6WDWH RI 83
«5HVSRQGHQW
&RXQVHO IRU WKH DSSOLFDQW
 6UL 5DYLQGUD 5DL
&RXQVHO IRU WKH UHVSRQGHQW
 $*$
6HFWLRQ &U3&2WKH 0DJLVWUDWH GLUHFWHG WKH 6WDWLRQ 2IILFHU
FRQFHUQHG WR UHJLVWHU DQG LQYHVWLJDWH WKH FDVH DQG UHSRUW 7KH YHU\
GLUHFWLRQ IRU UHSRUWLQJ WKH SURJUHVV RI LQYHVWLJDWLRQ PD\ QRW E\
1998
------
Dropal Singh
 Vs.
N.P.C.I. Ltd.
& another
------
M.Katju, J.
1998
------
September, 1
1 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES 85
LWVHOI YLWLDWH WKH GLUHFWLRQ IRU UHJLVWUDWLRQ RI WKH FDVH RU DQ
LQYHVWLJDWLRQ
&DVH UHIHUUHG
$&& 3
$&& 3
&U/- 3
By the Court
1.
The matter was heard yesterday.

2.
The present application is directed against an order dated
2.7.1998 passed by the II Addl. C.J.M., at Varanasi in Crime No.C13/98 relating to P.S. Badagaon, Varanasi.

3.
An application was filed before the Addl. C.J.M. by one
Rajesh Kumar Mishra against the present applicant and others for
action under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. The Magistrate recorded an
order in the following language :

"Seen contents and record.

Order

S.O. Baragaon to register and investigate the case and report."

4.
It was argued that the Magistrate had no authority to call for a
report and that would amount to interference in investigation. It was
further argued that when it was an allegation of misuse of authority
and acts of dishonesty against public servant of any status, a suitable
preliminary enquiry should have been made before registering a
case. It was also submitted that being aggrieved by certain orders
recorded by the authorities, that the complainant moved a writ
petition and the same was finally withdrawn and thereafter when the
authorities proceeded according to law the present case has been
initiated on false allegations.

5.
Reliance was placed on certain case laws. The learned counsel
placed before me the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
State of Haryana & others V. Chaudhary Bhajan Lal and others as
reported in 1991 (28) Alld. Criminal Cases 111. The case law does
not relate to exercise of powers under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. but in
1998
------
R.K.Mishra
 Vs.
State of U.P.
------
S.K.
Phaujdar, J.
86 THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [1999
interpreting Section 157, Cr.P.C. it was observed that when there is a
complaint against a public servant for misuse of authority and acts of
dishonesty, a suitable preliminary enquiry must be made before
registering complaint and making full investigation therein. This
very case law, however, states that at the stage of registration of a
crime on the basis of information, the Police Officer cannot make an
enquiry as to whether the information is reliable and genuine. The
Police Officer, it was held, cannot refuse to register a case on such
ground, rather he was statutorily obliged to register a case and to
enter the substance in a prescribed form.

6.
Reference was also made to a decision of the Allahabad High
Court recorded by an Hon'ble Single Judge in the case of Raj Kumar
Agarwal and others Vs. State of U.P. and others as reported in 1995
(32) Alld. Criminal Cases 253. It was in relation to exercise of
powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. in a matter pending investigation
and the Court had directed that the Investigating Officer was to apply
his mind to the materials received during investigation and then to
decide if there was absolute necessity of arrest.

7.
The third case placed before me is a decision of the Gujarat
High Court in the case of Arvindbhai Ravjibhai Patel Vs. State of
Gujarat and others as reported in 1998 Crl.L.J. 463. It was a case
where the complaint filed before the Magistrate should have been
investigated by the court itself and it was held that ""passing the
buck" to the police for doing the needful was improper and
amounted to abdication and dereliction of duty. It was an order
whereby the Magistrare, upon receipt of the complaint, had directed
an enquiry to be made by the Police and to submit a report.

8.
In the present case, however, the Magistrate was informed
about a cognizable offence as complaint was made of forgery of
papers. The nature of allegation suggested that the details could be
brought to light by an investigation only and as such it was not
"passing of the buck" by the Magistrate to the Police. The Magistrate
clearly directed registration of a case and investigation. While
writing the order the Magistrate had also recorded "and report".
These words may not be given undue importance as the Magistrate
simply wanted to be aware of the developments and nothing more. It
is the duty of the Police Officer to intimate the registration of an
F.I.R. and to intimate the proceedings of investigation in case any
accused is arrested and forwarded to court. Thus, the very direction
for reporting the progress of investigation may not, by itself, vitiate
1998
------
R.K.Mishra
 Vs.
State of U.P.
------
S.K.
Phaujdar, J.
1 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES 87
the direction for registration of a case or an investigation. This order
under under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. may not, therefore, be
interferred with under Section 482, Cr.P.C. So far the other prayer
for stay of arrest of the applicant in the case is concerned, it will be
entering into the merits of the case and, as far the present norm
followed by this High Court, the powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C.
may not be exercised in any manner so as to interfere with the
investigation. So far as the prayer for stay of arrest or for any other
prayer of the like nature, it will be open for the petitioner to move the
writ Court.

The present application stands disposed of with the above
observations.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $/
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
/$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( '. 6(7+ -
7+( +21·%/( '. 6(7+ -
&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI
5DNHVK .XPDU
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
663 6DKDUDQSXU RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV
&RXQVHO IRU WKH SHWLWLRQHU
 6UL 6XUHVK &KDQGUD 'ZLYHGL
&RXQVHO IRU WKH UHVSRQGHQWV
 6&
$UWLFOH RI WKH &RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD27HUPLQDWLRQ RI VHUYLFH
XQGHU 83 7HPSRUDU\ *RYW (PSOR\HHV 7HUPLQDWLRQ RI 6HUYLFH
 DIWHU KH KDG UHQGHUHG ò \HDUV RI VHUYLFH LV EDG LQ YLHZ RI
WKH IDFW WKDW WKH SHWLWLRQHU ZDV DOUHDG\ FRQILUPHG E\ XQGHUJRLQJ
WKH SHULRG RI 3UREDWLRQ DQG DV VXFK KH FRXOG QRW EH VXEMHFWHG WR
WKH 83 7HPSRUDU\ *RYHUQPHQW 6HUYLFH 7HUPLQDWLRQ RI 6HUYLFH
5XOHV
&DVHV UHIHUUHG
$,5 6& 3
$,5 6& 3
$O5 3
$,5 6& 3
6&& 6&& 3
1998
------
August, 18