# Leeladhar v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 10 ILRA 475
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-10-15
- **Case number:** Service Single No. 17321 of 2018
- **Bench:** Manish Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/leeladhar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45356
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Uttar Pradesh Police
Officers
of
the
Subordinate
Rank
(
Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 -
Natural Justice - Disciplinary Proceedings
-

Evidence
recorded
during
the
preliminary enquiry cannot be used in
regular departmental enquiry. (11)

The impugned order of dismissal was passed
against the petitioner, Head Constable on a
frivolous complaint by a woman of bigamy. No
other evidence except the statement given by
the complainant during the preliminary enquiry
were relied in the departmental enquiry to arrive
at a conclusion that charges of bigamy is proved
against the petitioner. Therefore, the findings
holding the petitioner guilty of bigamy is vitiated
under law. (Para 10, 13)

Writ Petition Allowed. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

10 All. Leeladhar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
475
seniority since they have been working on
supernumerary posts, it does not arise since
the Government placed the respondents
above the petitioners solely on the ground
of their merger by order dated 3.5.2011.
The order dated 3.5.2011 has already been
found to be bad in law by Division Bench
of this Court vide judgment and order dated
13.04.2017. Since the Rules did not provide
for the merger and Government Order
could not alter or over-ride the provision of
the Statutory Rules.

61. In view of the discussion held
above and finding no merit in submissions
made on behalf of the respondents, the writ
petition is allowed. The two impugned
orders dated 15.04.2019 are quashed. The
seniority list dated 17.11.2017 issued by
Opposite Party No. 2 in compliance with
the judgment dated 13.04.2017 shall be
maintained and remained operative.

62. No order as to cost.
----------
(2020)10ILR A475
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 15.10.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

Service Single No. 17321 of 2018

Leeladhar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Avinash Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - Uttar Pradesh Police
Officers
of
the
Subordinate
Rank
(
Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 -
Natural Justice - Disciplinary Proceedings
-

Evidence
recorded
during
the
preliminary enquiry cannot be used in
regular departmental enquiry. (11)

The impugned order of dismissal was passed
against the petitioner, Head Constable on a
frivolous complaint by a woman of bigamy. No
other evidence except the statement given by
the complainant during the preliminary enquiry
were relied in the departmental enquiry to arrive
at a conclusion that charges of bigamy is proved
against the petitioner. Therefore, the findings
holding the petitioner guilty of bigamy is vitiated
under law. (Para 10, 13)

Writ Petition Allowed. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Narayan Dattatraya Ramteerthakhar Vs St. f
Mah. & ors. AIR 1997 SC 2148 (followed)

2. Nirmala J. Jhala Vs St. of Guj. & anr. 2013
(31) LCD 762 (SC) (followed)

3. Champaklal Chimanlal Shah Vs U.O.I. AIR
1964 SC 1854

4. State of U.P. Vs Jai Singh Dixit 1975 ALR 64

5. Raj Veer Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors. 2010 (10)
ADJ 246

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manish Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Shri Avinash Tiwari, learned
counsel for the petitioner and learned State
Counsel for the respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been
preferred for quashing of the impugned
dismissal order dated 03.05.2018 passed by
the respondent no. 3 i.e. the Superintendent
of Police, District Raibareli with all
consequential benefits of the services.

3. The learned counsel for the
petitioner has submitted that the petitioner
476 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
was initially appointed on the post of
Constable
in
the
year
1986
and
subsequently promoted as Head Constable
in the year 2017. On 12.07.2017, one Smt.
Archna, wife of late Makhan Kurmi made a
frivolous complaint of bigamy against the
petitioner. The I.G. (Lokasikayat), Uttar
Pradesh vide its order dated 12.07.2017
directed
respondent
no.
3
i.e.
the
Superintendent of Police, District Raibareli
to conduct a preliminary inquiry. The
preliminary enquiry was conducted by
Circle Officer, Salon. After culmination of
the enquiry, the preliminary enquiry report
was submitted on 30.08.2017. In the
preliminary enquiry, the complainant, Smt.
Archana made a statement that she had in
close proximity and having a love affair
with the petitioner and they got married,
from that wedlock, a son was born.

4.

The
Charge-Sheet
dated
09.10.2017
was
issued
against
the
petitioner under Rule 41 of the Uttar
Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate
Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules,
1991.

5. The learned counsel for the
petitioner has further submitted that in
support of the charges levelled against the
petitioner only two documents were relied,
the first was the testimony given by the
complainant during the preliminary enquiry
and second one was the preliminary
enquiry report, except that no other
documents or evidence in support of the
charges was enclosed along with the charge
sheet. In reply thereto, the petitioner
submitted its detailed reply denying the
charges of bigamy.

6. The statement of the complainant
was also recorded during the regular
departmental
enquiry,
where
the
complainant
has
given
a
categorical
statement that she does not reside with the
petitioner nor she has married with him.
She further made a statement that she lives
along with her parents and having no child
from the petitioner.

7. The learned counsel for the
petitioner has further submitted that the
Enquiry Officer only on the basis of the
statement given by the complainant during
preliminary enquiry drawn a conclusion
that the case of bigamy is proved against
the petitioner. It has further been submitted
that
except
the
statement
of
the
complainant
during
the
preliminary
enquiry, no other evidence or material was
on the record before the enquiry officer,
which could prove the charge of bigamy
against the petitioner, thus, the impugned
order of dismissal dated 03.05.2018 is only
based on statement of the complainant
recorded during the preliminary enquiry
and the said fact is not disputed rather
admitted in para 9 and 10 of the counter
affidavit.

8. It has also been submitted that the
evidence recorded during the preliminary
enquiry
cannot
be
used
in
regular
departmental enquiry and in support of this
placed reliance on the following judgments
:-

(1)
Narayan
Dattatraya
Ramteerthakhar Vs. State of Maharashtra
& others reported in AIR 1997 SC 2148.

(2) Nirmala J. Jhala Vs. State of
Gujarat and another reported in 2013 (31)
LCD 762 (SC)

(3) Champaklal Chimanlal Shah
vs. Union of India reported in AIR1964 SC
1854.

(4) State of U.P. Vs. Jai Singh
Dixit reported in 1975 ALR 64
10 All. Leeladhar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
477

(5) Raj Veer Singh Vs. State of
U.P. and others reported in 2010 (10) ADJ
246.

9. On the other hand, learned State
Counsel has submitted that the complainant
during the preliminary enquiry had made a
statement before the Circle Officer, Salon
that she had an affair with the petitioner
and they married subsequently and from
that, a son has born but failed to dispute the
statement made on behalf of the petitioner
that
during
the
regular
departmental
enquiry, the complainant had given a
statement
denying
the
marriage
and
residing with the petitioner.

10. After hearing the learned counsel
for the parties, the position which emerges
out is that there was no evidence or
material to prove the charge of bigamy
against the petitioner in the regular
departmental enquiry but the enquiry
officer, on the basis of the statement given
by the complaint Smt Archna during the
preliminary enquiry arrived at a conclusion
that charge of bigamy is proved against the
petitioner.

11. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court
in
the
case
of
Narayan
Dattatraya
Ramteerthakhar (supra) has held that the
preliminary enquiry has no bearing with the
enquiry conducted after issuance of charge
sheet. The former action would be to find
whether disciplinary enquiry should be
initiated against the delinquent. After fullfledged enquiry, a preliminary enquiry
looses
its
importance.
Similarly,
the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nirmala
J Jhala (supra) has held that evidence
recorded in preliminary enquiry cannot be
used in regular enquiry, as the delinquent is
not associated with it, and opportunity to
cross examine the persons examined in
such enquiry, is not given. Using such
evidence would be violative of the
principles
of
natural
justice.
The
preliminary enquiry is useful only to take a
prima-facie view, as to whether there can
be some material in the allegation made
against an employee, which may warrant a
regular enquiry.

12. The learned State Counsel has not
able to show any other material or record,
neither in the enquiry report nor in counter
affidavit, which could prove the charge of
bigamy against the petitioner except the
statement given by the complainant during
the preliminary enquiry.

13. Further, the respondents failed to
dispute that the order of dismissal of the
petitioner was only based on the statement
of the complainant made during the
preliminary enquiry and as per the law
discussed hereinabove, the enquiry officer
conducting the regular enquiry erred in
relying upon the statement given by
complainant during preliminary enquiry,
therefore, the finding holding that charge
against the petitioner is proved, is vitiated
under the law.

14. Taking into consideration the
aforesaid discussion, it is found that the
dismissal order of the petitioner dated
03.05.2018 passed by the respondent no. 3
is bad in the eyes of law and is hereby
quashed.

15. The petitioner shall be reinstated
in the service with immediate effect and is
entitled for 50% of the back wages from
the
date
of
impugned
order
dated
03.05.2018.

16. The writ petition is allowed.
----------
478 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2020)10ILR A478
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 14.10.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

Service Single No. 21633 of 2019

Sachin Kumar Verma ...Petitioner
Versus
Bank of Baroda & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ajay "Madhavan"

Counsel for the Respondents:
Lalit Shukla

A. Service Law
- Appointment
- An
appointment letter was issued to the petitioner
but before joining he was implicated in a criminal
case. He voluntarily brought this to the
knowledge
of
the
respondent-Bank.
The
respondent- Bank had granted one year time for
joining with a condition that he should come with
an order of acquittal. Due to no fault of the
petitioner, the proceedings in the court could not
conclude within a period of 1 year. As soon he
got acquitted in the case, he filed representation
for joining. The Court noted that though it is the
discretion lies with the employer (bank) to take a
decision in the matter to retain the person or not.
But it must be reasonably exercised in the
background of circumstances of the case which
may differ from case to case. (Paras 12, 13)

Writ Petition Allowed. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:-

Avtar Singh Vs U.O.I. & ors. (2016) 8 SCC page 471
(followed)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manish Kumar, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner
and Sr Lalit Shukla, learned counsel for the
respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been
preferred for quashing the orders dated
30.03.2019 passed by Opposite Party No.3;
dated 26.07.2018 passed by Opposite Party
No.1 and order dated 19.06.2018 passed by
Opposite Party No.2, rejecting the candidature
of
the
petitioner
for
appointment
as
Probationary Officer.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that vide letter dated 2.5.2017 an
appointment has been given to the petitioner on
the post of Probationary Officer
after
successfully completing the Diploma Course in
Banking & Finance followed by essential
training program & Internship at Deva Branch
of Bank of Baroda. Petitioner was given time to
join by 17.05.2017. After the issuance of the
appointment letter and prior to joining, an F.I.R.
was lodged on 9.5.2017, in which the petitioner
was falsely implicated. He was enlarged on bail
on 27.05.2017. On being enlarged on bail,
petitioner
immediately
informed
the
respondent-Bank on 31.05.2017 about the false
implication of the petitioner in the criminal case
and lodging of an F.I.R. The Bank has informed
the petitioner that the Competent Authority had
taken a decision that his candidature may be
kept in abeyance till his acquittal, not exceeding
more than one year, failing which the
candidature of the petitioner would stand
cancelled.

4. The petitioner made his earnest effort
for expeditious disposal of the criminal case
by approaching the High Court. But time that
it takes in court proceedings is beyond the
control of the petitioner. When one year was
to expire, the petitioner made a representation
on 7.5.2018 and 19.06.2018 for extension of
time for a few months but the petitioner
received no reply.

5. The petitioner was acquitted in the
criminal case vide order / judgement dated