# Murari v. State of U.P. and others)

- **Citation:** (2012) 3 ILRA 1119
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-09-26
- **Case number:** Service Single No. 2055 of 2011
- **Bench:** Ritu Raj Awasthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/murari-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-42341
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Rules 2009-petitioners working on Class
4th
Post-challenging
dismissal
order
passed under Rule 1999-on ground
petitioner
being
class
4th
employee
governed by U.P. Govt. Servant Group-D
Employees
Rules
1985-heldmisconceived in view of Section 29 of
Rule 2009 itself Service Condition of
Class 4th employee working in Police
Department-for all purpose are member
of Police Force-dismissal order warrant
no interference.

Held: Para 11

This Court is of the view that petitioners
being employed in Police Department are
for all purposes part of police force, as
such, it cannot be said that Police Act,
1861 will apply on petitioners. The
service conditions of petitioners while
working on Class-IV post in Police
Department are to be governed by 2009
Rules and the matters which are not
precisely covered by 2009 Rules are to
be
governed
by
U.P.
Government
Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules,
1999 which is very much clear from Rule
29 of 2009 Rules.
Case law discussed:
Special Appeal No. 169 of 2012 (Krishna
Murari Vs. State of U.P. and others)

## Text

3 All] Raj Dutt Tiwari S/O Kishun Dutt Tiwari & others V. State of U.P. and others
1119
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 26.09.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RITU RAJ AWASTHI, J.

Service Single No. 2055 of 2011

Raj Dutt Tiwari S/O Kishun Dutt Tiwari &
Ors

 ...Applicant
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru Principal Secretary
Home & Ors.

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shesh Nath Bharadwaj

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

U.P. Police Group-D Employees Service
Rules 2009-petitioners working on Class
4th
Post-challenging
dismissal
order
passed under Rule 1999-on ground
petitioner
being
class
4th
employee
governed by U.P. Govt. Servant Group-D
Employees
Rules
1985-heldmisconceived in view of Section 29 of
Rule 2009 itself Service Condition of
Class 4th employee working in Police
Department-for all purpose are member
of Police Force-dismissal order warrant
no interference.

Held: Para 11

This Court is of the view that petitioners
being employed in Police Department are
for all purposes part of police force, as
such, it cannot be said that Police Act,
1861 will apply on petitioners. The
service conditions of petitioners while
working on Class-IV post in Police
Department are to be governed by 2009
Rules and the matters which are not
precisely covered by 2009 Rules are to
be
governed
by
U.P.
Government
Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules,
1999 which is very much clear from Rule
29 of 2009 Rules.
Case law discussed:
Special Appeal No. 169 of 2012 (Krishna
Murari Vs. State of U.P. and others)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for
petitioners as well as learned Standing
Counsel.

2. Under challenge is the validity of
U.P. Police Group-D Employees Service
Rules, 2009 (in short 2009 Rules).

3. Learned counsel for petitioners
submits that petitioners being class-IV
employees working in Police Department
cannot be treated to be police officers as the
Police Act, 1861 and U.P. Police Officers of
Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal)
Rules, 1991 (in short 1991 Rules) are not
applicable to the petitioners.

4. Contention is that the impugned
Rules have been framed in exercise of
powers under Section 2 and sub-sections 2
and 3 of Section 46 of Police Act, 1861 and
as such the impugned Rules are Ultra Vires
and beyond the Rule making powers of the
State Government under Section 46(2) and
(3) of Police Act, 1861.

5. It is further submitted that service
conditions of petitioners were governed
under Uttar Pradesh Government Servant
Group-D Employees Service Rules, 1975 as
amended in 1985 (in short 1985 Rules) and
the petitioners are similarly situated classIV employees as of other departments of
State Government.

6. Learned Standing Counsel on the
other hand submitted that it is totally
misconceived to say that petitioners while
working in Police Department are not part
1120 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
of police force. The petitioners are class-IV
employees and there were no separate
service rules governing them and as such in
exercise of powers under Police Act, 1861
State Government has framed Rules to
govern the service conditions of such classIV
employees
employed
in
Police
Department. There is no infirmity or
illegality in the impugned 2009 Rules.

7. It is further submitted that after
coming into force 2009 Rules it cannot be
said
that
the
service
conditions
of
petitioners would be governed by any other
Rules such as Uttar Pradesh Government
Servant Group-D Employees Service Rules,
1975 as amended in 1985-86.

8. I have considered the submissions
made by the parties' counsel.

9. It is to be noted that the Division
Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No.
169 of 2012 (Krishna Murari Vs. State of
U.P. and others) had considered the
applicability of 2009 Rules wherein it was
held that earlier service conditions of
Class-IV employees working in Police
Department were governed by 1985 Rules
which after notification of the 2009 Rules
stood superseded. It was further observed
by the Division Bench that the matters
which are not precisely covered by 2009
Rules are to be governed by 1991 Rules
as provided under Rule 29 of 2009 Rules.

10. The relevant paragraph of the
judgment and order dated 10.4.2012
passed in Special Appeal No. 169 of 2012
on reproduction reads as under:

"On due consideration of rival
submissions, we are of the view that
earlier the service conditions of the
appellant-writ petitioner were governed
by the 1985 Rules which after notification
of the 2009 Rules stood superseded.
However, the matters not precisely
covered by the 2009 Rules were to be
governed by the 1999 Rules as provided
vide Rule 29 of the 2009 Rules.

Admittedly, upto the stage of serving
of charge-sheet, the respondents followed
the procedure as prescribed under Rule 7
of the 1999 Rules. It was only thereafter
that they deviated from the correct
procedure. They acted under some wrong
impression that since the 2009 Rules have
been framed in exercise of powers under
the U.P. Police Act, it has changed the
status of the appellant-writ petitioner
from being a cook to an officer. The 2009
Rules do not provide so anywhere in any
provision, and had there been a clear
intention
that
the
appellant-writ
petitioner, being a Group-D employee,
has been included in the category of
subordinate police officers, the 2009
Rules would have explicitly provided it,
particularly in the matter of disciplinary
proceedings."

11. This Court is of the view that
petitioners being employed in Police
Department are for all purposes part of
police force, as such, it cannot be said that
Police Act, 1861 will apply on petitioners.
The service conditions of petitioners
while working on Class-IV post in Police
Department are to be governed by 2009
Rules and the matters which are not
precisely covered by 2009 Rules are to be
governed by U.P. Government Servants
(Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999 which
is very much clear from Rule 29 of 2009
Rules.

12. Rule 29 of 2009 Rules reads as
under:
3 All] Anoop Gulati V. State of U.P. and others
1121

"29- Regulation of other Subjects: In
regard to the matters not specifically
covered by these Rules or by special orders,
person appointed to a post in the service
shall be governed by the rules, regulations
and
orders
applicable
generally
to
Government Servants serving in connection
with the affairs of the State."

13. As such it is to be observed that
provisions of 1991 Rules would not be
applicable on the petitioners.

14. Since the Court has come to
conclusion that Police Act, 1861 would be
fully applicable to the class-IV employees
working in Police Department, as such it
can be concluded that there is no infirmity
or illegality in U.P. Police Group-D
Employees Service Rules, 2009 so for as its
challenge on such ground is concerned.

15. With the aforesaid observations,
the writ petition is disposed of.
---------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.09.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JAYASHREE TIWARI, J.

Criminal Revision No. 2738 of 2009

Anoop Gulati

 ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P.and others

 ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Arun K. Singh-I

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.
Sri G.S.Chaturvedi
Sri Vivek Prakash Mishra

Criminal Revision-against dismissal of
complaint passed by Magistrate under
Section 203-on ground from perusal of
complaint and the statement of witnessno offence under Section 420, 467,
468,471,504,
506
I.P.C.
Made
out,
considering civil-nature dispute pending
of Civil Suit-dismissal of complaint-heldproper.

Held: Para 29

Thus, from the perusal of the record, it
comes out that learned Magistrate has
not out rightly rejected the complaint
and has not taken cognizance of the
same holding that adequate remedy can
be granted by the civil court but he has
duly taken cognizance of the matter on
the complaint case and proceeded to
record the statements under Section 200
& 202 Cr.P.C. and thereafter considering
the material evidence on record, has
passed the order under Section 203
Cr.P.C.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1954 SC 307; 2010 (9 ADJ 599; 2009 AIR
SCW 2449; 2009 (5) ADJ 649; AIR 2001 SC
3014; AIR 2001 SC 3846 (1); AIR 1972 SC
1607; AIR 2001 SC 12960; 2011 AIR SCW
6385; AIR 2006 SC 2780

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Jayashree Tiwari, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
revisionist, learned A.G.A. as well as
learned counsel for the respondents and
perused the record.

2. The present criminal revision has
been filed for quashing the order passed by
the learned Magistrate in Complaint Case
No. 5657/2008, whereby learned Magistrate
after taking cognizance of the complaint
and after recording the statements under
Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and also
perusing the material evidence on record
had dismissed the compliant under Section
203 Cr.P.C. holding that no prima facie,
case is made out.