# Km. Anamika Singh v. The State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2019) 3 ILRA 185
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-10-17
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13260 of 2016
- **Bench:** Ashwani Kumar Mishra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/km-anamika-singh-v-the-state-of-u-p-ors-44803
- **Pages:** 15

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Termination - U.P.
Police Constable and Head Constable
Service Rules, 2015: Rule 20(4), Rule
14(1) - Once a trainee police constable is
proposed to be terminated on a specific
charge of misconduct, the procedure
under Rule 14 should be mandatorily
followed before proceeding to impose
major punishment. (Para 16, 21, 23)

Rule confers jurisdiction upon the appointing
authority
to
assess
the
working
of
a
probationer with an intent to either confirm his
services or to extend the period of probation
or to discontinue his employment on account
of unsatisfactory work and failure to improve
despite opportunity. The petitioners have
hardly worked for a month, their termination
on grounds of misconduct and assessment of
their working during the period of probation.
(Para 18, 19, 21)

B. Service Law - U.P. Police Regulations:
Regulation 541(2) - Applicability - Police
regulations have been held to have
binding force but in areas where field is
occupied by statutory regulations, the
authorities cannot act in violation of
statutory rules by resorting to provisions
of Police Regulations. (Para 21)

D. Service Law - Termination- Principles
to
term
a
termination
order
as
'simplicitor' or 'punitive' reiterated.

If form and language of the termination of
probationer clearly indicate that it is punitive
in nature then there would be no requirement
to go into the details of the background and
surrounding circumstances in testing whether
the order of termination is simplicitor or
punitive. (Para 24, 25)

E. Service Law - Constitution of India -
Disproportionate action is in derogation
186 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of Art. 311(2) and Art. 14 of Constitution
of India - The doctrine of proportionality,
as part of the concept of judicial review,
would ensure that even on the aspect,
which is otherwise, within the exclusive
province of the competent authority would
be interfered with if it is outrageous
defiance of logic. (Para 26 to 32)

Petition allowed (E-4)

Precedent followed: -

## Text

_Characters 0–39,826 of 48,510. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39826 for what follows._

3 All. Km. Anamika Singh Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
185
also considering the dictum of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in re: K. V. Jankiraman
(supra), I am of the considered opinion
that in the given circumstances the sealed
cover envelope in the case of the
petitioner should be opened atonce as the
charge-sheet has yet not been served upon
him.

10. Accordingly, the writ in the
nature
of
mandamus
is
issued
commanding the opposite parties to open
the sealed cover procedure, within three
weeks from the date of production of a
certified copy of this order, wherein the
recommendation of the D.P.C. held in the
year 2016 has been kept in the sealed
cover procedure and act upon the
recommendation of D.P.C. The petitioner
shall also be entitled for all consequential
service benefits strictly in accordance to
law.

11. The writ petition is, therefore,
allowed.

12. No order as to cost.
----------
(2019)11ILR A185

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVILL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.10.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13260 of 2016
Connected with
WRIT -A No.13262 of 2019
and
WRIT -A No.13263 of 2019
and
WRIT -A No.13265 of 2019

Km. Anamika Singh ..Petitioner
Versus
The State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Vijay Gautam, Sri Atipriya Gautam, Sri
Vinod Kumar Mishra.

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - Termination - U.P.
Police Constable and Head Constable
Service Rules, 2015: Rule 20(4), Rule
14(1) - Once a trainee police constable is
proposed to be terminated on a specific
charge of misconduct, the procedure
under Rule 14 should be mandatorily
followed before proceeding to impose
major punishment. (Para 16, 21, 23)

Rule confers jurisdiction upon the appointing
authority
to
assess
the
working
of
a
probationer with an intent to either confirm his
services or to extend the period of probation
or to discontinue his employment on account
of unsatisfactory work and failure to improve
despite opportunity. The petitioners have
hardly worked for a month, their termination
on grounds of misconduct and assessment of
their working during the period of probation.
(Para 18, 19, 21)

B. Service Law - U.P. Police Regulations:
Regulation 541(2) - Applicability - Police
regulations have been held to have
binding force but in areas where field is
occupied by statutory regulations, the
authorities cannot act in violation of
statutory rules by resorting to provisions
of Police Regulations. (Para 21)

D. Service Law - Termination- Principles
to
term
a
termination
order
as
'simplicitor' or 'punitive' reiterated.

If form and language of the termination of
probationer clearly indicate that it is punitive
in nature then there would be no requirement
to go into the details of the background and
surrounding circumstances in testing whether
the order of termination is simplicitor or
punitive. (Para 24, 25)

E. Service Law - Constitution of India -
Disproportionate action is in derogation
186 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of Art. 311(2) and Art. 14 of Constitution
of India - The doctrine of proportionality,
as part of the concept of judicial review,
would ensure that even on the aspect,
which is otherwise, within the exclusive
province of the competent authority would
be interfered with if it is outrageous
defiance of logic. (Para 26 to 32)

Petition allowed (E-4)

Precedent followed: -

1. Parshotam Lal Dhingra Vs U.O.I., AIR
(1958) SC 36 (Para 23)

2. S.B.I. Vs Palak Modi (2013) 3 SCC 607
(Para 23)

3. Paras Nath Pandey Vs Director North
Central Zone, Cultural Center, Allahabad,
(2008) (10) ADJ 283 (Para 12, 24) pet.

4. Mathew P. Thomas Vs Kerala St. Civil
Supply Corp. Ltd. & ors., (2003) 3 SCC 263
(Para 25)

5. Ranjit Thakur Vs U.O.I., (1987) 4 SCC 611
(Para 30)
6. Bhagat Ram Vs St. of H. P., AIR (1983) SC
454 (Para 31)

7. S. R. Tiwari Vs U.O.I., (2013) 6 SCC 602
(Para 32)

Precedent distinguished: -
1. Chandra Prakash Sahi Vs St. of U.P., (2000)
5 SCC 152 (Para 21)

Present petition challenges impugned
orders dated 26.06.2019, passed by the
Senior
Superintendent
of
Police,
Prayagraj.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar
Mishra, J. )

1. This bunch of writ petitions are
directed against orders dated 26th June,
2019,
passed
by
the
Senior
Superintendent
of
Police,
Prayagraj,
whereby all the petitioners have been
terminated from service. The identical
worded orders passed in respect of all the
petitioners record that the petitioners
while undergoing on the job training, sat
on a protest (dharna) on 5.6.2019, and
also blocked the road in front of training
centre for raising their grievances that
were extremely ordinary/trivial in nature,
and were otherwise based mostly on
rumours. Such act of indiscipline, while
on training in a disciplined organization
has been viewed seriously as an act of
misconduct. Show cause notice was
accordingly issued to them, to which a
reply has also been submitted. The
explanation
submitted
by
present
petitioners to the show cause notice has
not been found satisfactory and it is
observed that chances of petitioners
becoming good police personnels do not
exist. Jurisdiction under Rule 20(4) of the
U.P.
Police
Constable
and
Head
Constable Service Rules, 2015 read with
Regulation 541(2) of the U.P. Police
Regulations
has
been
invoked
to
terminate the services of the present
petitioners. Aggrieved by such orders of
termination the petitioners are before this
Court.

2. Before coming to the issues on
merits, it would be worth noticing some
of the background facts. State of Uttar
Pradesh initiated process to recruit 41520
Constables in Civil Police and Pradeshiya
Armed
Constabulary
(PAC),
vide
advertisement
dated
14.1.2018.
Petitioners also applied against the
advertisement and having cleared the
recruitment
process
were
ultimately
selected on 18.2.2019. All the petitioners
were allotted Allahabad (Prayagraj) for
undergoing on the job training. The first
part of the JTC Training Course was
3 All. Km. Anamika Singh Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
187
successfully completed by the petitioners
w.e.f. 16.5.2019 to 31.5.2019. The next
round of training was to be undertaken at
Regional Training Centre at Varanasi
(hereinafter referred to as the RTC) w.e.f.
3rd June, 2019. It is on record that 300
female constables joined the RTC at
Varanasi on 1st June, 2019, while 47
other female constables joined on 2nd
June, 2019. Their training commenced on
3rd June, 2019. It is at this stage that the
incident is said to have happened giving
rise
to
passing
of
the
orders
of
termination.

3. Alongwith the writ petition
various newspaper reports have been
annexed. The first of such newspaper
report published in Hindi Daily 'Amar
Ujala' from Varanasi is of 6th June, 2019.
The headline of the news item quotes the
lady trainee constables that their videos
were prepared while they were having
bath. The incident in question reportedly
occurred in the night of 4/5th June, 2019,
as per the newspaper report. A protest
was reportedly organized by the female
trainee constables demanding adequate
security arrangement for them and for
proper boundary etc. to be raised for their
safety and security. Similar reports got
published in other prominent newspapers
including Dainik Jagaran etc., which are
also annexed. Newspaper reports, ipso
facto, may not be acceptable, but in view
of what has been brought on record of the
writ petitions, as would be elaborated
later, it is apparent that serious issues
relating to safety, security and breach of
privacy for female constables on training
had arisen resulting in a protest by them.

4. It transpires that on the very next
morning a protest was made to highlight
the problems faced by the lady police
constables. Their protest ended with an
assurance received from the Senior
Superintendent
of
Police
that
their
security and safety would be duly looked
after. The incident, however, did generate
concerns and was apparently taken as an
act of serious breach of discipline on part
of trainee constables by the higher police
officers. The SSP Varanasi on 5th May,
2019 itself constituted a Committee to
inquire
into
the
protest
by
lady
constables.
This
Inquiry
Committee
comprising of three officers submitted its
fact finding report on 8th June, 2019.
Copy of this report has been placed on
record alongwith the counter affidavit. Its
copy has also been served upon the writ
petitioners alongwith the show cause
notice. This inquiry report is the only
material relied upon for taking the action
against the writ petitioners.

5. Reference to this report would be
necessary at this stage. The fact finding
report, dated 8.6.2019, runs into 42 pages
and records statement of 50 persons. It
includes statement of 33 lady constables
who were undergoing training, apart from
other police personnels some of whom
were present at the training centre. In
order to protect the identity of lady
constables the names of lady constables in
the report is not being mentioned. The
statement of first trainee police constable
discloses that during the night of 4/5th
June, 2019, she heard loud voices at the
door of her barrack and when this
constable came out she found that many
of the female trainees present were
weeping and informing the officer of the
training centre about entering of some
boy in the training centre. The next
statement is also of a lady trainee
constable narrating similar facts and also
that the broken door of her barrack was
188 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
repaired only on 4.6.2019 in the evening.
Their
statements
are
extracted
hereinafter:-

^^cSfjd ls ckgj fudyus ij dkQh
yMfd;ka jks jgh Fkh rFkk lHkh lj dks crk jgh
Fkh fd eSus fdlh yMds dks cSfjd ds rjQ vkrs
gq, ns[kk gS rks lHkh lj lhlhVh,u,l dk;kZYk;
ds vkl & ikl tkdj ns[kk] ogka dksbZ ugh
feykA lHkh YkMfd;ka jks jgh Fkh] ftUgsa lj
le>k jgs FksA eS vius cSfjd esa okil pyh
x;hA

2- c;ku e0 fj0 vk0 --------------- eS
,y cSjd esa jgrh gwaA esjs dejs esa njoktk VwVk
gqvk Fkk mlds ckjs es geus estj lj dk fnukad
04-06-2019 dks crk;k FkkA fnukad 04-06-2019
dh 'kke dks gh njoktk Bhd djok fn;k x;k
rFkk gesa mUgksus iw.kZ #i ls lqj{kk dk Hkjkslk
fnyk;kA fnukad 04@05-06-2019 djhc jkf= esa
12 cts dkQh 'kksj&xqy gks jgk FkkA ge yksx
vius cSjd ls ckgj fudys rks tkudkjh gqbZ fd
fnukad 04@05-06-2019 dks djhc 11-45 cts
Vksyh ua0 13 dh cSjd fM;wVh dh efgyk ------------
us 02 yMdks dks ifjlj esa vkrs ns[kk gS rFkk
mlds dqN le; ckn Vksyh ua0 11 dh ----------------
---- }kjk fdlh yMds dks cSjd es gkFk Mkyrs
gq, ns[kus dh ckr crkbZ tk jgh FkhA dqN nsj
ckn estj lj vkSj dqN vkbZVhvkbZ] ihVhvkbZ
ogka igaqpsA dqN nsj ckn NksVsyky lj igqaps
vkSj yMfd;ksa dks jksrs vkSj ?kcMkrs gq, ns[kdj
mUgsa lqj{kk dk Hkjkslk fnykrs gq, ?kVuk ds ckjs
esa tkap dh ckr Hkh dgh vkSj lqj{kk fM;wVh ij
04 vkj{kh dh fM;wVh rFkk 02 efgyk vkj{kh dh
fM;wVh yxk;hA

3---------------^eSa lks jgh FkhA jkf= djhc
12 cts cSjd esa 'kksj gqvk rks eS tx x;h rks
ns[kk fd -------------- gkFk esa okbij yh Fkh vkSj
fpYyk jgh Fkh fd dkSu cn~reht gS vkSj dgh
fd dksbZ O;fDr f[kMdh ls gkFk Mky jgk FkkA
fQj lkjh yMfd;ka bdB~Bk gksdj xsV ij pyh
x;h vkSj 'kksj epkus yxhA dqN nsj ckn djhc
12-30 cts yMfd;ksa us crk;k fd ckgj lj vk;s
gS rks ge yksx ckgj vk x;s rks ns[kk dh dkQh
HkhM bdB~Bk gks x;h FkhA lHkh yMfd;ka lj ls
ckr&phr dj jgh Fkh] muds }kjk lHkh
YkMfd;ksa dks le>k;k tk jgk Fkk fd ge yksx
rqEgkjs ekrk & firk dh rjg gSA tks Hkh
leL;k,a gS mudk fuLrkj.k lqcg dj fn;k
tk;sxkA estj lj djhc 04 cts rd ge yksxks
ds lkFk FksA blds ckn eS vius cSjd esa lksus
pyh x;hA

^^iz'u & D;k vki }kjk fnukad 0106-2019 ls 04@05-06-2019 dh jkf= rd fdlh
yMds dks cSjd vFkok ok'k#e esa ns[kk x;k gS \

mRrj & Jheku th ugh] dsoy
fnukad
04@05-06-2019
dh
jkf=
dks
lhlhVh,u,l dk;kZy; ds Nr ij ,oa dqN nsj
ckn fdlh O;fDr dks f[kMdh ds cxy ls Hkkxrs
gq, ns[kh FkhA^^

6. The statements of all 33 lady
police
constables
are
unanimous,
inasmuch as, they came to know of an
incident occurring in the intervening night
of 4/5th June, 2019, on account of which
all the lady constables were frightened
and were immensely concerned about
their safety and security. It has also been
stated by most of these female constables
that they could not even dare to go alone
to the toilets for the fear of their security.
Statements of these constables suggests
that two boys came on a bike and entered
the training campus and that one of them
tried to harm one of the lady trainee
constables. The statements also suggest
that basic facilities were not satisfactory
and that water supply in the toilets was
resumed only on 4.6.2019. Trainees had
to go about 200 meters just to get
drinking water. It is to be remembered
that first week of June is the peak summer
period when temperature in Varanasi can
go upto 48 degree centigrades. Lack of
regular water supply for drinking and fir
use in toilets can well be visualized. The
3 All. Km. Anamika Singh Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
189
report further acknowledges that it was
very hot and some of the coolers were got
repaired while process was initiated to
buy more coolers. Moreover due to low
voltage even faces were not running
properly.

7. It is not necessary to refer to all
the statements but suffice it to note that
the statements given by all trainee
constables were consistent about an
incident having occurred on the fateful
night as also about lack of basic facilities
at the centre. The questions that have
been posed to these lady constables
appear to suggest that anxiety on part of
the concerned authorities was more to
emphasize that there was no fault on their
part; that basic facilities existed for them;
that
none
of
the
candidates
had
specifically admitted outraging of her
modesty; and that on an unfounded
hearsay misreporting by one of the
candidates the other trainee recruits
overreacted and had blown the incident
out of proportion.

8. There is an apparent noticeable
flaw in the fact finding report. The tenor
of report shows insensitivity to the
concern of trainee constables who had
stayed only for a couple of days and were
new to the place. It is but natural that
none of the recruits would have wished to
be identified for an attempted outraging
of her modesty, nor would have dared to
speak-up against administration for lack
of basic amenities provided to them. The
authorities also failed to appreciate the
consistent statement of almost all the lady
trainee constables that they were in a state
of fear and shock and were apprehensive
about their safety. In almost all the
statements it has surfaced that two boys
on a bike entered the training camp with
one of them going on roof while the other
went near the office. The alleged
undesirable acts were attributed to these
two
intruders.
The
three
member
committee, however, disbelieved the
concern of lady constables by a curious
process of reasoning. It observed as
under:-

^^tgka rd fnukad 04-06-2019 dks
le; djhc 12-00 cts jkf= cSjd uEcj 11 esa
f[kMdh ls fdlh vKkr ;qod }kjk vUnj gkFk
Mkyus lEcU/kh vkjksi gSA f[kMdh ds Bhd lkeus
e0 fj0 vk0 ---------------------- dk csM gS ,oa mlds
cxy es e0 fj0 vk0 -------------- dk ,oa mlds
lkekukUrj f}rh; iafDr esa ---------------o --------------------
dk csM yxk gqvk gSA mDr ds lanHkZ es e0 fj0
vkjf{k;ksa ls c;ku fy;k x;k ftlesa ls e0 fj0
vk0 --------------- o ---------------------- }kjk jkf= ds le;
djhc 12 ctas ds chp fdlh vKkr O;fDr ds
gkFk dk vUnj ns[kuk crk;k x;kA bl lanHkZ esa
mYys[kuh; gS fd e0 fj0 vkjf{k;ksa ds
lqj{kkRed n`f"Vdks.k ls budh vkoklh; O;oLFkk
Hkh iqfyl ykbu ds vfUre dksus esa LFkkfir
fd;k x;k gSA tks yxHkx nksuks rjQ 08 QhV o
mlls maph nhokj ls f?kjk gS] tks lqjf{kr LFkku
gSA
ge
vf/kdkjhx.kksa
}kjk
scene-reconstruction 1⁄4n`'; iqulZajpuk1⁄2 djds ns[kk
x;k rks f[kMdh ls csM dh nwjh 03 QhV ls
vf/kd dh FkhA vr% Li"V gS fd f[kMdh ls csM
rd fdlh O;fDr ds gkFk dk igqapuk lEHko ugh
gS vr% NsMNkM dh fu;r ls mDr ?kVuk dk
dkfjr fd;k tkuk rkfdZd izrhr ugh gksrkA

mDr f[kMdh ds ckgj mHkjh gqbZ
feV~Vh ,oa dqN fu"iz;ksT; OkLrq,a tSls nhoky
?kMh iMh gqbZ FkhA ;fn dksbZ O;fDr ogak fdlh
Hkh fu;r ls [kMk gksrk rks mlds iSjksa ds fu'kku
mHkjh gqbZ feV~Vh ij t#j gksrsA

pwafd fdlh Hkh e0 fj0 vk0 }kjk
Li"V #i ls ;g ugh crk;k x;k fd gkFk fdlh
yMdh dk Fkk vFkok yMds dk vr% fuf'pr
#i ls ;g ugh dgk tk ldrk fd ml LFkku
ij dksbZ iq#"k gh vk;k Fkk vFkok bl rF; ls
190 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Hkh budkj ugh fd;k tk ldrk fd fdlh
'kjkjrh yMdh }kjk 'kjkjro'k ogak fdlh xyr
fu;r ls ml LFkku ij x;h gks tSlk fd e0
fj0 vk0 --------------------- }kjk vius c;ku es crk;k
x;k fd mDr ;qod@ O;fDr lQsn jax dk
Vh&"kVZ igus gqvk Fkk vkSj CkSjd ds leLr e0
fj0 vk0 lQsn jax dk Vh&"kVZ /kkj.k djrh gSA
pwafd nhokj ds ihNs vke lMd gSA vr% ;g Hkh
lEHkkO; gS fd dksbZ O;fDr pksjh dh fu;r ls
izos'k fd;k gksA fdUrq lhlhVhoh ds u gksus ls
,oa e0 fj0 vkjf{k;ksa }kjk Li"V #Ik ls gkFk dks
ugh ns[ks tkus ds dkj.k mDr vkjksi dh
okLrfodrk ij dqN Hkh Li"V #i ls dgk tkuk
lEHko ugh gSA

fnukad 01-6-2019 dks fjtoZ iqfyl
ykbu okjk.klh esa 300 e0 fj0 vkjf{k;ksa ,oa
fnukad 02-06-2019 dks dqy 47 e0 fj0 vkjf{k;ksa
}kjk viuk vkxeu djk;k x;kA ?kVuk fnukad
05-06-2019 dks izkr% 06 cts dh gSA ?kVuk ds
fnu e0 fj0 vkjf{k;ksa }kjk tks leL;ka, crk;h
x;h muesa ls eq[; #i ds de oksYVst gksuk]
ia[ks] izdk'k] 'kkSpky;] Lukukxkj] f[kMfd;ksa dk
VwVk gksuk o lqj{kk lEcfU/kr leL;k,a crk;h
x;hA

ge vf/kdkjhx.kksa }kjk fnukad 05-62019 e0 fj0 vkjf{k;kas ds izR;sd cSjdksa dk
HkkSfrd lR;kiu dks fd;k x;k rks ik;k x;k fd
yxHkx lHkh cSjdksa esa Ik;kZIr la[;k es ia[ks yxs
gq, gSA ftu cSjdksa es ;fn dksbZ ia[ks [kjkc Fks
rks mudh rRdky ejEEkr gsrq izfrlkj fujh{kd
okjk.klh dks funsZf'kr fd;k x;kA e0 fj0
vkjf{k;ksa }kjk iwoZ es xehZ T;knk gksus dh
leL;k crkus ij izfrlkj fujh{kd fjtoZ iqfyl
ykbu okjk.klh }kjk ykbu esa miyC/k dwyjksa
dks e0 fj0 vkjf{k;ksa ds d{k es yxok;k x;k
,oa vU; dwyjksa ds dz; lEcU/kh izfdz;k iwoZ esa
gh izkjEHk dh tk pqdh gSA tgak rd fo|qr
O;oLFkk esa oksYVst ds de gksus dh leL;k gS
ftldk izR;{k #i ls iqfyl foHkkx ls dksbZ
lEcU/k ugh gSA chp esa ek= 01 fnol oksYVst
lEcU/kh leL;k vk;h ftlls cSjdks ds ia[ks /khjs
& /khjs py jgs Fks tks dkykUrj esa Lor% Bhd
gks x;kA

e0 fj0 vkjf{k;ksa }kjk crk;h x;h
leL;k esa ,d ckFk#e dk gksuk o ,d VksVh dk
gksuk crk;k x;k gSA tcfd ekSds ij HkkSfrd
lR;kiu djus ij ik;k x;k fd 42 ckFk#e
iz;ksxkRed voLFkk esa lgh fLFkfr esa ik;s x;sA
vr% e0 fj0 vkjf{k;ksa dh la[;k ds vuqikr ls
Ik;kZIr ckFk#e miyC/k ik;s x;s rFkk e0 fj0
vk0 }kjk ckFk#e ls lEcfU/kr NksVh & eksVh
leL;kvksa ds ckjs esa crk;k x;k mudk orZeku
esa rRdky izHkko ls ejEer djk fn;k x;k gSA
tgak rd e0 fj0 vk0 }kjk ckFk#e vFkok
'kkSpky; dk nwjh ij fLFkr gksuk crk;k x;k ds
lEcU/k es HkkSfrd lR;kiu djus ij ik;k x;k
fd cSjd ls ckFk#e vFkok 'kkSpky; dh
vf/kdre nwjh yxHkx 20 ehVj o U;wure nwjh
04 ehVj ij gS] tks cgqr vf/kd ugh gSA vr,o
mDr vkjksi vlR; ,oa fujk/kkj gSA tgak rd
'kkSpky; lEcU/kh leL;k gS rks mlds lEcU/k esa
HkkSfrd lR;kiu djus ij ik;k x;k fd 50
'kkSpky; lkQ & lqFkjs ,oa lqO;ofLFkr n'kk esa
ik;s x;s tks e0 fj0 vkjf{k;ksa dh la[;k ds
lkis{k Ik;kZIr gSA

e0 fj0 vkjf{k;ksa }kjk crk;h x;h
leL;kvks esa ls ,d cMh leL;k ikuh dh crk;h
x;h fd mUgs ikuh ysus gsrq cSjd ls vkj0 vks0
Iyk.V ftldh nwjh yxHkx 200 ehVj gksxh tkuk
iMrk gSA lkFk gh ikuh j[kus gsrq fdlh ik= dh
O;oLFkk Hkh ugh gSA mDr leL;k ds lUnHkZ esa tkap
djus ij ik;k x;k fd fnukad 04-06-2019 dks izkRk%
mDr lEkL;k ds lanHkZ es e0 fj0 vkjf{k;ksa }kjk
izfrlkj fujh{kd ds laKku esa yk;k x;k ftlij
izfrlkj fujh{kd }kjk rRdky laKku ysrs gq, 20
yh0 okys 70 xSyuksa o ?kMks dk dz; dj forfjr
djk;k x;k o cSjdksa rd 'khry is;ty igqapkus
dh O;oLFkk dh x;hA vr% mDr leL;k dk
le;c) rjhds ls funku djk;k x;kA tgak rd
e0 fj0 vk0 }kjk ikuh gsrq iSlk fy, tkus lEcU/kh
vkjksi dk iz'u gS] ds lEcU/k es Li"V djuk
lehphu gksxk fd e0 fj0 vk0 ls ikuh gsrq dksbZ
iSlk ugh fy;k x;k gS] tSlk fd izfrlkj fujh{kd
ds c;ku ls Li"V gSA^^

9. The Committee ultimately went
on to hold that in respect of extremely
3 All. Km. Anamika Singh Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
191
common and simple problems the lady
constables overreacted. Findings have
ultimately been returned by the Inquiry
Committee in following terms:-

^^lEiw.kZ tkap ,oa lk{; fo'ys"k.k ls
;g ik;k x;k fd 04 e0 fj0 vk0 ftuesa 01-------
------02----------------------03-----------------------o ---------------------------
----04------------lfEefyr
gS
dks
iqfyl
tSls
vuq'kkflr cy es jgrs gq, bu 04 e0 fj0 vk0
us vU; efgyk fj0 vkjf{k;ksa esa vlarks"k QSyk;k
vkSj mUgs lMd tke djus gsrq mRizsfjr dj
fjtoZ iqfyl ykbZu xsV ij ys tk;k x;kA
vf/kdkfj;ksa ds lkFk vHknz O;ogkj o rdZ &
fordZ djrs gq, vuq'kklughurk dk ifjp;
fn;k x;kA bu efgyk fj0 vkjf{k;ksa }kjk Lo;a
o vU; e0 fj0 vk0 dks iqfyl ykbZu xsV ij
/kjuk nsus ds fy, mRizsfjr djus ls iqfyl
foHkkx dh Nfo /kwfey gqbZA ;g fLFkfr rS;kj
djus ds fy, bu 04 e0 fj0 vk0 dks izeq[k #i
ls nks"kh ik;k tkrk gSA

blds vfrfjDr 13 efgyk fjdzwV
vkjf{k;ksa ftues dze'k% 01--------------------02------------------
--03--------------04----------------------05---------------------06--------------
------07--------------08---------------------09---------------------10-----------
--11---------------------12--------------13------------dks vf/kdkfj;ksa
ds lkFk okn & fookn djuk] lMd ij cSBuk]
ckj & ckj dgus ds ckn Hkh lMd ls u gVuk
,oa ekgkSy lkekU; djus esa lg;ksx u djus dh
nks"kh ik;h tkrh gSA Hkfo"; esa bl ckr ls badkj
ugh fd;k tk ldrk fd buds }kjk ,slh lquh
& lquk;h ckrksa ds izHkko eas vkdj vuq'kklUk ij
izfrdwy izHkko Mkyk tk ldrk gSA vr% Hkfo";
esa buds izf'k{k.k ij lrdZ n`f"V j[kk tkuk
visf{kr gSA vr,o mDr 13 e0 fj0 vk0 dks
vU;= vkj0 Vh0 lh0 esa LFkkukUrfjr fd;k
tkuk fopkj djus ;ksX; gSA

blds vfrfjDr ;g Hkh ns[kus es
vk;k fd dqN efgyk fjdzwV vkjf{k;ksa }kjk {kqnz
vuq'kklughurk n'kkZ;h x;hA muds nks"k ds
vuq#Ik mUgsa vyx ls Vksyh dek.Mj@Vksyh
mLrkn@x.kuk estj ls fpfUgr djkdj
dk;Zokgh fd;k tkuk lehphu gksxkA

tkap vk[;k voyksdukFkZ lknj lsok
esa iszf"kr gSA^^

10. The three member committee
has fastened responsibility of organising
protest and instigating others upon the
petitioners. They are also accused of
misbehaving with senior officers. The
committee has also recommended transfer
of thirteen lady constables to other
training centres and further observed that
in respect of some of the lady trainee
recruits, who have shown acts of minor
indiscipline, separate proceedings be
undertaken to identify them and to take
action, accordingly. It is admitted on
record that apart from this fact finding
inquiry no other inquiry has been held.

11. Alongwith the counter affidavit
an order of the Deputy Inspector General
of Police (Personnel), dated 11th June,
2019 has been annexed, which directs the
SSP Prayagraj to take recourse to Rule
20(4) of the Rules of 2015 read with
Regulation
541(2)
of
the
Police
Regulations
and
after
affording
an
opportunity of hearing to the lady
constables, take appropriate action. It is in
furtherance of this direction that a show
cause notice has been issued to all the
petitioners. The petitioners have denied
the allegations levelled against them in
the show cause notice. In the leading writ
petition, the petitioner has referred to the
statement of the lady constable who had
noticed entry of two unauthorised persons
in the training centre on a bike and that on
account of their attempting to outrage the
modesty of one of the constables the
trainee constables got frightened and
raised their voice. They also informed the
authorities about it. She has denied
having taken any part in the protest or
having instigated anyone else. Similar
192 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
stand is taken by other petitioners. The
petitioners have also denied having
violated any provision of law or having
indulged in any act of indiscipline. The
explanation submitted by the petitioners
have been rejected holding it to be not
satisfactory. Consequently, orders of
termination
have
been
passed.
No
disciplinary
proceedings
have,
nevertheless, been initiated against the
petitioners.

12. The orders impugned are
challenged primarily on the ground that as
petitioners have been terminated on
specific charges of indiscipline and
misconduct,
without
conducting
any
disciplinary inquiry against them, as such,
the orders are contrary to law. It is also
stated that adequate opportunity has been
denied to the petitioners to prove their
innocence
and
that
the
procedure
contemplated in law has otherwise been
violated. The petitioners further urge that
in view of the nature of allegations
levelled against them an inquiry under
Rule 14(1) of the U.P. Police Officers of
Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and
Appeal) Rules, 1991 was imperative
which has not be done and consequently
the order impugned is unsustainable.
Submission is also advanced that Rule
20(4) of the Rules of 2015 have no
applicability in the facts of the present
case since the termination is founded on
misconduct, without holding any enquiry,
and not upon assessment of their work
upon conclusion of the probation period.
Petitioners have placed reliance upon a
Division Bench Judgement of this Court
in Paras Nath Pandey Vs. Director North
Central Zone, Cultural Center, Allahabad
passed in Special Appeal No. 798 of
2000. It has also been argued that
petitioners' reply has not been considered
and the impugned action is otherwise
grossly disproportionate so as to shock
the conscience of a prudent person.

13. A counter affidavit has been
filed stating that due procedure has been
followed before passing the order and that
the grievance regarding violation of
principles of natural justice is not made
out. Petitioners have filed a rejoinder
affidavit denying averments made in the
counter affidavit and have reiterated
averments made in the writ petition.

14. I have heard Sri Vijay Gautam,
learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri
Atipriya Gautam, learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for
the respondents and perused the materials
brought on record.

15. Facts giving rise to the present
controversy have already been noticed
and, therefore, requires no reiteration. It is
admitted that petitioners have been
terminated from service on a specific
charge of misconduct. According to
respondents
for
extremely
ordinary
grievances the petitioners went on a
protest and blocked the road, outside the
training centre, instigated others and
misbehaved with higher authorities which
is clearly an act unbecoming of a police
personnel
for
which
termination
is
justified.

16. It is not in issue that petitioners
services
in
the
matter
of
alleged
misconduct on their part are governed by
the provisions of the Rules of 1991. Once
a trainee police constable is proposed to
be terminated on a specific charge of
misconduct, it is imperative that the
procedure contemplated under Rule 14 is
followed before proceeding to impose
3 All. Km. Anamika Singh Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
193
major punishment. It is not in issue that
no procedure contemplated under Rule 14
of the Rules of 1991 has been followed.
No regular disciplinary proceeding has
been instituted; none of the witnesses
have been produced in presence of the
petitioners and they have also been denied
an opportunity to cross examine them.
The only inquiry conducted in the matter
is at best a fact finding inquiry which
cannot be a substitute for a regular
disciplinary inquiry contemplated under
the Rules of 1991. The petitioners
grievance about denial of opportunity to
defend themselves is also substantiated on
record. Violation of the provisions of
Rule 14 is also disclosed. The order
impugned in the present writ petition,
therefore, is liable to be set aside on this
short ground alone.

17. The respondents apparently have
invoked Rule 20(4) of the 2015 Rules as
also para 541(2) of the U.P. Police
Regulations to pass the order impugned.
Rule 20(4) of the Rules of 2015 is
reproduced:-

^^;fn ifjoh{kk vof/k ;k c<+k;h x;h
ifjoh{kk vof/k ds nkSjku fdlh Hkh le; ;k
mlds vUr esa fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh dks ;g izrhr
gks fd ifjoh{kk/khu O;fDr us c<+k;h x;h
ifjoh{kk vof/k ds nkSjku fu;qfDrizkf/kdkjh ds
larks"kkuqlkj i;kZIr lq/kkj ugha fd;k gS rks mls
mlds ekSfyd in ij] ;fn dksbZ gks] izR;kofrZr
fd;k tk ldrk gS vkSj ;fn mldk fdlh in
ij /kkj.kkf/kdkj u gks] rks mldh lsok;sa lekIr
dh tk ldrh gSA^^

18. Rule 20(4) confers jurisdiction
upon the appointing authority to assess
the working of a probationer with an
intent to either confirm his services or to
extend the period of probation or
discontinue his employment on account
of unsatisfactory work and failure to
improve despite opportunity.

19. On facts, exigency to invoke
Rule 20(4) of the 2015 Rules has not
arisen.
The
respondents
were
not
assessing the performance of probationer
with the object of extending probation or
confirming the services. The petitioners
have hardly worked for a month. Their
termination is on grounds of misconduct
and not assessment of their working
during the period of probation. The order
impugned, therefore, is also liable to be
set aside as it suffers from colourable
exercise of power.

20. Para 541(2) of the U.P. Police
Regulations provides as under:-

"In any case in which either
during or at the end of the period of
probation, the Superintendent of Police is
of opinion that a recruit is unlikely to
make a good police officer he may
dispense
with
his
service.
Before,
however this is done the recruit must be
supplied with specific complaints and
grounds on which it is proposed to
discharge him and then he should be
called upon to show cause as to why he
should not be discharged. The recruit
must furnish his representation in writing
and it will be duly considered by the
Superintendent of Police before passing
the orders of discharge."

21. Though Police Regulations have
been held to have binding force in
Chandra Prakash Sahi vs. State of U.P.
reported in (2000) 5 SCC 152 but the
regulations
ultimately
remains
a
compendium of executive instructions.
The Police Regulations would therefore
remains subservient to the statutory
194 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
service regulations in vogue. In areas
where field is occupied by statutory
regulations the authorities cannot be
permitted to act in violation of statutory
rules by having resort to the provisions of
Police Regulations.

22. In the matter of holding of
disciplinary inquiry rule 14 of the Rules
of 1991 occupies the field and specifies
the manner of conduct of disciplinary
inquiry. The requirement of adherence to
rule 14 cannot be obviated by relying
upon para 541(2) of the U.P. Police
Regulations. Rule 20(4) of the Rules of
2015
and
para
541(2)
of
Police
Regulations operate in different field
altogether i.e. assessment of work by a
probationer and would not be attracted in
a case of misconduct.

23. In case of termination on the
proved
charges
of
misconduct
the
authorities would be required to act as per
Rule 14(1) of the Rules of 1991 even if
the police personnel is on probation. Law
in that regard stands settled in Parshotam
Lal Dhingra Vs. Union of India; AIR
1958 SC 36. The proposition of law in
that regard has remained consistent and
has been reiterated in a recent judgment
of the Apex Court in State Bank of India
vs. Palak Modi reported in (2013) 3 SCC
607. In Palak Modi (supra) services of
private respondents were not terminated
on account of any deficiency in their
performance during probation period but
foundation of termination was the alleged
use of unfair means in confirmation
examination
which
constituted
misconduct. Inquiry in the manner
contemplated was not done on the
premise that the private respondents were
probationer. The Apex Court held the
termination to be unsustainable.

24. A Division Bench of this Court
in Paras Nath Pandey Vs. Director North
Central Zone, Cultural Center, Allahabad
reported in 2008 (10) ADJ 283 held as
under in para 57 to 59:-

"57.
From
the
above
discussions, the principles discernible to
find out whether a simple order of
termination/discharge of a temporary
employee or probationer is punitive or
not, broadly, may be stated as under :

(a)The termination of services
of a temporary servant or probationer
under the rules of his employment or in
exercise of contractual right is neither per
se dismissal nor removal and does not
attract the provisions of Article 311 of the
Constitution.

(b)An order of termination
simplicitor
prima
facie
is
not
a
punishment
and
carries
no
evil
consequences.

(c)Where
termination
simplicitor is challenged on the ground of
casting stigma or penal in nature, the
Court initially would glance the order
itself to find out whether it cast any
stigma and can be said to be penal or not.
If it does not, no further enquiry shall be
held unless there is some material to show
certain
circumstances,
preceding
or
attending, shadowing the simplicitorness
of the said order.

(d)The Court is not precluded
from going beyond the order to find out
as to whether circumstances, preceding or
attending, makes it punitive or not. If the
circumstances, preceding or attending,
show only the motive of the employer to
terminate, it being immaterial would not
3 All. Km. Anamika Singh Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
195
vitiate the order unless it is found that
order is founded on such act or omission
constituting misconduct.

(e)If the order visits the public
servant with evil consequences or casts
aspersions
against
his
character
or
integrity, it would be an order by way of
punishment irrespective of whether the
employee was a mere probationer or
temporary.

(f)"Motive" and "foundation"
are distinct, though the distinction is
either very thin or overlapping. "Motive"
is the moving power, which impels action
for a definite result, or to put it
differently. "Motive" is that which incites
or stimulates a person to do an act.
"Foundation", however, is the basis, i.e.,
the conduct of the employee, When his
acts
and
omissions
treated
to
be
misconduct,
proved
or
founded,
it
becomes a case of foundation.

(g)If an order has a punitive
flavour in cause or consequence, it is
dismissal, but if it falls short of it, it
would not.

(h)Where
the
employer
is
satisfied of the misconduct and the
consequent desirability of termination, it
is dismissal even though the order is
worded innocuously. However, where
there is mere suspicion of misconduct and
the employer does not wish to bother
about it, and, instead of going into the
correctness of guilt, feel like not to keep
the employee and thus terminate him, it is
simpliciter termination and not punitive.

(i)Where
the
termination
simplicitor is preceded by an enquiry,
preliminary or regular , the Court would
see the purpose, object of such enquiry as
also the stage at which, the order of
termination has been passed.

(j)Every enquiry preceding the
order of termination/discharge, would not
make it punitive. Where an enquiry
contemplated
in
the
rules
before
terminating an probationer or temporary
employee is held, it would not make the
order punitive.

(k)If the enquiry is to find out
whether the employee is fit to be
confirmed or retained in service or to
continue, such an enquiry would not
render termination punitive.

(l)Where the employer hold a
formal enquiry to find out the correctness
of
the
alleged
misconduct
of
the
employee and proceed on the finding
thereof, such an order would be punitive,
and, cannot be passed without giving an
opportunity to the concerned employee.

(m)If some formal departmental
enquiry commenced but not pursued to
the end. Instead a simple order of
termination
is
passed,
the
motive
operating in the mind of the authority
would be immaterial and such an order
would be non punitive

(n)When
an
order
of
termination is assailed on the ground of
mala
fide
or
arbitrariness,
while
defending the plea of mala fide, if the
authority
has
referred
certain
facts
justifying the order of discharge relating
to misconduct, negligence or inefficiency
of the employee in the appeal or in the
affidavit filed before the Court, that
would not make the order founded on any
misconduct.
196 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(o)Sometimes
when
some
reason is mentioned in the order, that by
itself would not make the order punitive
or
stigmatic.
The
following
words
mentioned in the order have not been held
to be punitive.

i."want of application",

ii."lack of potential",

iii."found not dependable",

iv."under suspension",

v."work is unsatisfactory",

vi."unlikely
to
prove
an
efficient officer".

(p)Description of background
facts also have not been held to be
stigmatic

(q)However,
the
words
"undesirable
to
be
retained
in
Government service", have been held
stigmatic.

(r)If there is (i) a full scale
formal enquiry, (ii) in the allegations
involving moral turpitude or misconduct,
(iii) which culminated in a finding of
guilt; where all these three factors are
present, the order of termination would be
punitive
irrespective
of
the
form.
However, if any one of three factors is
missing, then it would not be punitive.

58. The aforesaid are not
exhaustive, but lay down some of the
principles to find out whether termination
of an employee is simplicitor or punitive.
Each and every case has to be considered
in the light of the facts and circumstances
of the case, but broadly the aforesaid are
the factors to find out whether termination
of an employee is punitive or not.

59. Considering the facts of this
case in the light of the legal principles, as
discussed above, we are clearly of the
view
that
the
impugned
order
of
termination is nothing but punitive one
and, therefore, cannot sustain."

25. In Mathew P. Thomas vs. Kerala
State Civil Supply Corporation Ltd. and
others, (2003) 3 SCC 263, the Apex Court
observed that if form and language of the
termination of probationer clearly indicate
that is punitive in nature then there would
be no requirement to go into the details of
the
background
and
surrounding
circumstances in testing whether the order
of termination is simplicitor or punitive.
This judgment would clearly be attracted
in the facts of the present case inasmuch
as the very perusal of termination order
makes it explicit that termination of
petitioners probationer are founded upon
misconduct.

26. The petitioners are young
unmarried females who have just joined
the police force and have worked for less
than a month as trainee constables. Their
action in reacting to perceived threat to
their security and violation of privacy has
to be viewed with greater care and
concern and in keeping with prevalent
societal values. Their response to the
situation even if had breached the settled
norms of discipline in a police force but it
cannot be viewed as an grave act of
misconduct so as to warrant extreme
punishment of termination from service.

27. The respondents have proceeded
against the petitioners on the premise that
3 All. Km. Anamika Singh Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
197
on insignificant and non existent causes
an act of indiscipline is performed by
them. This premise, on facts, is found not
to be correct. Statement of large number
of lady trainee constables clearly shows
occurrence of some incident during the
night of 4/5th June, 2019 which generated
serious concerns relating to safety and
security of young ladies. These young
ladies were extremely frightened. The
facilities at the training centre for them
was otherwise not adequate. It was in this
background that they raised an alarm by
going on protest for a duration of about
half an hour and thereafter continued with
their training.

28.