# Raj Net Chauhan v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2003) 2 ILRA 271
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44021 of 1997
- **Bench:** A.K. Yog, Umeshwar Pandey
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/raj-net-chauhan-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-39137
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Constitution of India- Article 226- the
extreme
penalty
of
dismissal.
This
punishment
has
been
so
awarded
keeping
in
view
the
facts
and
circumstances of this case in as much as
the nature of service which is expected
of a person belonging to a disciplined
force. If the authorities below keeping in
view of this fact that the petitioner being
a member of the disciplined force of the
State Police when deliberately absented
from duty, committed great misconduct,
this Court while acting under Article 226
of the Constitution of India is not
supposed to interfere in the said finding
recorded by them.

Held- para 12

The petitioner being a police personnel
belonging to a disciplined force made his
deliberate absence from duty and did not
perform the assigned job of Santari on
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
272
the date 2.6.1992, instead he left for his
village home where he is shown to have
involved himself in a murder case which
has ended into his conviction from the
trial court, his alleged misconduct is not
to be taken lightly and if the punishing
authority has awarded the extreme
penalty of dismissal from his service and
the same has been confirmed by the
appellate
authority
as
well
as
the
Tribunal,
there
is
no
scope
for
interference in such orders under Article
226 of the Constitution of India by this
Court.
Case law referred:
JT 2002 (6) SC 162, JT 2002 (6) SC 157
AIR 1992 SC 2188, 1999 (i) ESC 339 SC
JT 2000 (3) SC 173

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Raj Net Chauhan V. State of U.P. and others
271
said decision has also taken the help of
the decision of the Supreme Court in the
case of Barada Kanta Misra which has
also been discussed by us in the foregoing
paragraph of this order.

17. For the reasons aforesaid we are
of the view that the preliminary objection
raised by the respondent is devoid of any
merit and it should be overruled.

Later

18. Heard learned counsel for the
parties on the question whether this
appeal should be admitted or not. Learned
counsel for the respondent, however,
prays for production of the records
relating to the writ petition as well as the
contempt proceedings and at the same
time also prays for production of the
records now lying in the Law Department.

19. After going through the
impugned order and after hearing the
learned counsel for the parties we are of
the view that this appeal should be
admitted and, accordingly, we admit the
appeal and in view of the nature of the
order passed by the learned Contempt
Judge we stay the operation of the
impugned order for a period of three
months from this date with liberty to
apply
for
extension,
vacation
and
variation of the interim order in the
presence of the other side or till the
disposal of the appeal, whichever is
earlier.

20. Regarding the question of
production of records we keep it open that
at the time of hearing of the appeal if
production of the record is found to be
necessary, the records shall be called for.

21. Counter affidavit be filed within
three weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any,
may be filed within one week thereafter.

Let the appeal be listed after a
month.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD MAY 22ND, 2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE A.K. YOG, J.
THE HON'BLE UMESHWAR PANDEY, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44021 of 1997

Raj Net Chauhan

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri D.N. Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Constitution of India- Article 226- the
extreme
penalty
of
dismissal.
This
punishment
has
been
so
awarded
keeping
in
view
the
facts
and
circumstances of this case in as much as
the nature of service which is expected
of a person belonging to a disciplined
force. If the authorities below keeping in
view of this fact that the petitioner being
a member of the disciplined force of the
State Police when deliberately absented
from duty, committed great misconduct,
this Court while acting under Article 226
of the Constitution of India is not
supposed to interfere in the said finding
recorded by them.

Held- para 12

The petitioner being a police personnel
belonging to a disciplined force made his
deliberate absence from duty and did not
perform the assigned job of Santari on
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
272
the date 2.6.1992, instead he left for his
village home where he is shown to have
involved himself in a murder case which
has ended into his conviction from the
trial court, his alleged misconduct is not
to be taken lightly and if the punishing
authority has awarded the extreme
penalty of dismissal from his service and
the same has been confirmed by the
appellate
authority
as
well
as
the
Tribunal,
there
is
no
scope
for
interference in such orders under Article
226 of the Constitution of India by this
Court.
Case law referred:
JT 2002 (6) SC 162, JT 2002 (6) SC 157
AIR 1992 SC 2188, 1999 (i) ESC 339 SC
JT 2000 (3) SC 173

(Delivered by Hon'ble Umeshwar Pandey, J.)

1. The petitioner, who was working
as Constable in U.P. Police Department,
challenges the orders dated 13.7.1994,
24.11.1994 and 26.8.1997 (annexures 4,5
and 8 to the writ petition) under Article
226 of the Constitution of India and prays
for issuance of writ in the nature of
certiorari to quash the same. He also
seeks, through this petition, a direction in
the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondents to reinstate him in service of
his original post of constable in the
Department.

2. The facts narrated in the present
petition are that while working as a
constable at Police Station Holagarh
district Allahabad on 1.6.1992 when the
petitioner applied for two days casual
leave with effect from 3.6.1992 the same
was granted. But inspite of the fact that he
was posted on duty of Santari at the
Police Station on 2.6.1992 he absented
without obtaining any leave or permission
from the Station Officer concerned.
Thereafter he was arrested by the police
of Tarwa Police Station district Azamgarh
in a case of murder, which was registered
at Crime No. 64 of 1992. He was sent to
lockup as a named accused in the
aforesaid case and could report to his duty
only on 2.7.1992 after his release on bail.
The petitioner was accordingly charged
for his unauthorized absence from duty
and the enquiry proceeded.

3. The petitioner submitted his reply
to the charges admitting to the aforesaid
fact that he had left the Police station
Holagarh 2.6.1992 after obtaining casual
leave for two days with effect from
3.6.1992.
He
requested
the
Head
Constable concerned for making a note of
his departure from the Police Station in
the General Diary and on his assurance
that the entry in the relevant General
Diary about such departure of the
petitioner would be made, he left the
Police station. After he reached home, he
was falsely implicated in the aforesaid
criminal case of murder and the local
police which, was seized with the
investigation of the case, arrested him. As
a result of his detention in the lock up he
could come to join his duties at the Police
Station Holagarh only on 2.7.1992.

4. The Enquiry Officer, in the
aforesaid disciplinary proceedings, found
that on 2.6.1992 the petitioner was
assigned Santari duty at the Police
Station from 9 AM to 12 Noon, but
without obtaining permission from the
concerned authority, he left the police
station and neglected his duty. He was
found absent without making entry (of his
departure) in the General Diary and later
on when he reached his village home, he
was implicated in the criminal case of
murder and rioting etc. and arrested.
Finding the petitioner guilty for the
unauthorized absence from duty, the
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Raj Net Chauhan V. State of U.P. and others
273
punishing authority (S.S.P. Allahabad),
acting upon the enquiry report, awarded
the punishment of dismissal.

5. This award of punishment was
challenged by the petitioner in appeal,
which too was dismissed vide impugned
order dated 24.11.1994 (Annexure 5 to
the writ petition). Subsequent thereto the
petitioner
preferred
claim
petition
challenging
the
order
of
punishing
authority as well as the appellate authority
before the State Public Service Tribunal
where also he could not get any relief and
the petition was dismissed, vide impugned
judgement dated 26.8.1997 (Annexure 8
to the writ petition).

6. The petitioner being aggrieved
with the aforesaid three orders of
punishing authority, appellate authority
and the Tribunal, (Annexures 4, 5 and 8 to
the writ petition) has approached this
Court. While challenging the aforesaid
orders, the petitioner took grounds inter
alia stating that penalty of dismissal from
service imposed against him in respect of
the charges does not commensurate with
the gravity of alleged misconduct. Such
extreme penalty is imposed only in
respect of charges of grave misconduct.
For unauthorized absence of a day from
duty the imposition of extreme penalty
upon a civil servant, is unwarranted.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner
emphasized before us that a day's absence
from duty is the only charge, which has
attracted
the
award
of
extreme
punishment
of
dismissal.
Such
a
misconduct of a day's absence from duty
is not so grave. In the present case of
petitioner, while awarding punishment,
the fact that he was involved in a murder
case and was arrested in his village home
by the local police has weighed too much
in the mind of the Enquiry Officer and the
punishing authority to hold the petitioner
guilty of a misconduct of gravest nature.
Such punishment should be awarded in
the cases of misconduct, which shows
incorrigibility and renders one unfit and
disqualified for the service.

8. The learned counsel while making
the aforesaid contention has, however, not
disputed the misconduct of alleged
absence of the petitioner from duty on
2.6.1992. Citing the case law of Kuldeep
Singh Vs. The Commissioner of Police
and others, reported in 1999 (1) ESC 339
SC and UP State Road Transport
Corporation and others Vs. Mahesh
Kumar Mishra and others reported in JT
2000 (3) SC 173, he has further
emphasized that the award of punishment
of dismissal in the aforesaid two cases has
been held by the Apex court to be illegal
and disproportionate.

9. So far as the aforesaid two cases
of Kuldeep Singh and U.P. State Road
Transport
Corporation
(supra)
are
concerned, the ratio laid down by the
Apex Court are not applicable, as the
present case factually stands apart to those
cases. In the case of Kuldeep Singh
(supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court found the
dismissal from service of a constable of
Delhi police to be illegal because the
charge of retention of sum of money
handed over to the constable by the
complainant
was
not found to be
established in accordance with law as the
complainant had refused to have given the
said amount to him and he was not
examined in the enquiry held before the
Enquiry Officer. In the other case it was a
bus conductor, who was dismissed from
service for having issued tickets of
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
274
Rs.150/- inspite of Rs.180/- to the
passengers. Those passengers were not
examined on the spot when the checking
was conducted nor they were examined
during the enquiry. It was under these
circumstances that the Hon'ble Supreme
Court found that the interference under
Article 226 of the Constitution made by
the High Court in regard to the quantum
of punishment was justified. Thus, the
aforesaid two cases relied upon by the
learned counsel for the petitioner do not
help to the arguments rendered by the
learned counsel in respect of the award of
punishment being disproportionate to the
alleged misconduct with which the
petitioner was charged.

10. The petitioner is a member of
state of U.P. Police, a disciplinary force.
He was directed to perform his duty as
Santari at the police station of his posting
on the said date (2.6.1992). For no good
reason shown by him in his reply to the
charges he absented from the said duty
and left the police station without making
any endorsement in the General Diary
maintained for the purpose. As a member
of police force, the petitioner is supposed
to maintain the standards of discipline
while performing his duty assigned from
time to time. If such a police personnel
flouting the orders of his superior does
not stick to the strict discipline of the
force and absents without any reasonable
cause, it would definitely constitute a
gravest
misconduct
warranting
his
dismissal
from
service.
The
word
'misconduct' has not a precise definition
of its own. Its reflection receive its
connotation from context, the delinquency
in its performance and its effect on the
discipline and the nature of the duty. Such
misconduct may involve improper or
wrong
behaviour,
forbidden
act,
a
transgression of established and definite
rule of action or code of conduct. The
police service is obviously a disciplined
service and it requires to maintain strict
standard of such discipline. Laxity in this
behalf erodes established norms of the
service causing serious effects in the
maintenance of law and order. The
petitioner in the present case by flouting
the order of his superior authority when
did not join the duty of Santari on the said
date and left the police station without
permission or information, this would
constitute gravest misconduct warranting
his dismissal from service. The authorities
while awarding this extreme penalty upon
the petitioner do not appear to have
transgressed any established norm or
propriety expected from them in the
present matter of disciplinary proceeding.
They were wholly justified in awarding
penalty of dismissal and in passing of the
orders impugned. The learned Standing
Counsel for the respondents, in this
context has relied and cited the case law
State of Punjab and others vs. Ram
Singh Ex. Constable reported in AIR
1992 SC 2188.

11. The learned Standing Counsel
while replying to the contentions of the
petitioner has submitted that this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India has certain norms of interference
with the orders of inferior tribunal and
other authority. The High Court is not to
go into the factual aspects of the matter.
There is an existing limitation on it to that
effect. The Tribunal as well as the
punishing and appellate authorities have
held the alleged misconduct of the
petitioner as a grave misconduct while
awarding the extreme penalty of dismissal
against him. This punishment has been so
awarded keeping in view the facts and
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Hanumant Kumar Gupta V. State of U.P. and others
275
circumstances of this case inasmuch as
the nature of service which is expected of
a person belonging to a disciplined force.
If the authorities below keeping in view
of this fact that the petitioner being a
member of the disciplined force of the
State Police when deliberately absented
from duty, committed grave misconduct,
this Court while acting under Article 226
of the Constitution of India is not
supposed to interfere in the said finding
recorded by them. The learned counsel in
this context has placed reliance on the
case law of M/s Lakshmi Precision
Screws Ltd. V. Ram Bahagat, reported in
JT 2002 (6) SC 162 and the Regional
Manager and Disciplinary Authority
State Bank of India, Hyderabad and
another vs. S. Mohammed Gaffar,
reported in JT 2002 (6) SC 157.

12. In the aforesaid view of the
matter that the petitioner being a police
personnel belonging to a disciplined force
made his deliberate absence from duty
and did not perform the assigned job of
Santari on the date 2.6.1992, instead he
left for his village home where he is
shown to have involved himself in a
murder case which has ended into his
conviction from the trial court, his alleged
misconduct is not to be taken lightly and
if the punishing authority has awarded the
extreme penalty of dismissal from his
service and the same has been confirmed
by the appellate authority as well as the
Tribunal,
there
is
no
scope
for
interference in such orders under Article
226 of the Constitution of India by this
Court.

13. In the result, the writ petition
having no merit, fails and it is hereby
dismissed.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.6.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 3155 of
2003

Hanumant Kumar Gupta
...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri D.V. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226-
quashing of Criminal proceedings- the
inherent power of quashing the criminal
proceedings has to be exercised very
sparingly and with circumspection and
that too in the rarest of rare cases and
the
Court
cannot
be
justified
in
embarking upon an enquiry as to the
reliability of geniuses of otherwise of
allegations
made
in
the
F.I.R.
or
complaint and the extra ordinary and
inherent powers of court do not confer
an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to
act according to its whim of caprice.

Held- Para 3

The inherent power of quashing the
criminal proceedings has to be exercised
very sparingly and with circumspection
and that too in the rarest of rare cases
and the Court cannot be justified in
embarking upon an enquiry as to the
reliability or genuineness or otherwise of
allegations
made
in
the
F.I.R.
or
complaint and the extraordinary and
inherent powers of Court do not confer
an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to
act according to its whims or caprice.