# Rajendra Singh Yadav v. Inspector General of Police, C.R.P.F., Lucknow and others

- **Citation:** (2003) 3 ILRA 863
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-03-27
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1384 of 1999
- **Bench:** R.B. Misra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajendra-singh-yadav-v-inspector-general-of-police-c-r-p-f-lucknow-and-others-40218
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution of India-Article 226-C.R.P.F.
Act
1949
-Sec.-11(1)-Service
lawabsence
from
duty-Dismissal
order
maintained in appeal and revision alsowhether punishment is too hares? Heldwillful absence from duty without valid
reason is a serious misconduct in the
force-dismissal from service held proper.

Held-Para 10

That it is the disciplinary authority to
pass appropriate punishment, the civil
court
or
appellate authority cannot
substitute its own view to that of the
finding of disciplinary authority imposed
on the delinquent official on the nature
of punishment. The court is also not to
sit over the finding of the disciplinary
authority in view of the (1997) 7 SCC
463 (Union of India and another v. G.
Ganayantham) and also (1998) 9 SCC
220 (U.P. SRTC v. Har Narain and
others).
Case law discussed:
1993 (1) UPLBEC 488
1997 (6) SCC 381
1997 (7) SCC 463
1998 (9) SCC 220

## Text

http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Rajendra Singh Yadav V. Inspector General of Police, C.R.P.F., Lucknow and others
863
of financial and social condition of the
weaker section of the society and also
order dated 15.11.1994 has also been
issued by the state Govt., providing that
all appointment in the Universities and
colleges, shall be made in accordance
with the aforesaid U.P. Act no. 4 of 1994.

20. Thus is in the nutshell, the
arguments of the respondent are that the
selection was not in contravention of the
provisions of U.P. Act No. 4 of 1994 and
notification dated 29.3.94 as well as read
with G.O. dated 15.11.94.

21. As per the requirements of
section 21.03 of the first statutes of
Kanpur University, prior approval is
necessary before appointment by the
authority and no illegality has been
committed in denying the approval to the
selection of the petitioner. Further the
rejection of the approval order has been
issued after giving full and proper
opportunity to the College authorities who
were competent to challenge the order in
question. The applicant is required to be
appointed just again the same category
and the case of the sweeper is of other
than the S.C. category. After enforcement
of the Act no. 4 of 1994, the G.O. has
been superceded as these facts are taken
cognizance by the Act itself, which is also
in conformity to schedule I annexed along
with Act of 1994, which is for the
backward class category.

22. From the record and the
contention of parties it is apparent that 12
posts are required to be filled as per roster
point no. 6. The averments made in
paragraph 15 of the writ petition are
uncontroverted. It is clear that the
authority had not given any opportunity to
the petitioner. Making an enquiry from
the University does no amount to giving
an opportunity to the person who was
being visited by civil consequences due to
illegal termination of his service, By the
impugned order dated 29.9.2001.

23. That the respondent no. 2
without any basis raised objection and
disapproved
the
selection
of
the
petitioner. The G.O. dated 5.6.82 only
states that list of class IV employee of the
schedule caste will be divided into two
parts firstly class IV employee in which
the sweepers are not included and
secondly class IV employee included in
only sweepers list. Shyam Lal belonged to
S.C.
category,
not
counting
the
candidature
of
sweeper
within
the
Scheduled caste. At the same time another
default is made, as sweeper has not been
shown in any other category. The
counting of roster in this manner is faulty
and deserves to be rejected.

24. In view of the aforesaid facts
and position of law, the writ petition is
allowed. The impugned order dated
29.9.2001 is quashed. Respondent no. 1 is
directed to approve considering of the
appointment of the petitioner within a
period of one month from the production
of a certified copy of the order No. order
as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.03.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE R.B. MISRA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1384 of 1999

Rajendra Singh Yadav
...Petitioner
Versus
Inspector General of Police, C.R.P.F.,
Lucknow and others
 ...Respondents
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
864 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri J.S. Tomar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri M.P. Shukla
Sri Chandra Prakash
S.C.

Constitution of India-Article 226-C.R.P.F.
Act
1949
-Sec.-11(1)-Service
lawabsence
from
duty-Dismissal
order
maintained in appeal and revision alsowhether punishment is too hares? Heldwillful absence from duty without valid
reason is a serious misconduct in the
force-dismissal from service held proper.

Held-Para 10

That it is the disciplinary authority to
pass appropriate punishment, the civil
court
or
appellate authority cannot
substitute its own view to that of the
finding of disciplinary authority imposed
on the delinquent official on the nature
of punishment. The court is also not to
sit over the finding of the disciplinary
authority in view of the (1997) 7 SCC
463 (Union of India and another v. G.
Ganayantham) and also (1998) 9 SCC
220 (U.P. SRTC v. Har Narain and
others).
Case law discussed:
1993 (1) UPLBEC 488
1997 (6) SCC 381
1997 (7) SCC 463
1998 (9) SCC 220

(Delivered by Hon'ble R.B. Misra, J.)

1. Heard Sri J.S. Tomar learned
counsel appeared on behalf of the
petitioner as well as learned Standing
Counsel appeared on behalf of the
respondent.

2. In this petition the orders dated
9.12.1997 and 4.12.1998 passed by the
respondents dismissing the appeal and the
revision against the dismissal from
service was challenged by the petitioner.

3. It appears that the petitioner while
functioning as Constable in 46 Bn. CRPF
during Dec. 94 committed an act of
misconduct in his capacity as a member
of the Force U/s 11 (1) of CRPF Act 1949
in that he after being relieved by GC,
CRPF Rampur (U.P.) on transfer to this
Unit on 2.12.94 (AN) permission to avail
7 days casual leave and did not report in
the unit and absented himself from duties
w.e.f. 15.12.94 (FN) till ordering of D.E.
without any information/permission from
the competent authority. Sri Surjeet Singh
D/C of 46 Bn, CRPF was appointed as
enquiry officer to enquire into the charge
framed against Ex. Ct. Rajendra Singh
Yadav. A full fledged enquiry was
conducted
and
he
was
given
full
opportunity to defend his case but he did
not produce any evidence/documents in
his support. On the basis of evidence
adduced during the course of enquiry, the
articles of charges framed against him
was proved beyond any shadow of doubt.
As a result of Departmental enquiry the
disciplinary authority i.e. Commandant 46
Bn CRPF has relied upon the enquiry
report, found Ex Ct. Rajendra Singh
Yadav not a fit person to be retained in
the Force and passed the order of
dismissal of said Ex. Const. from service
w.e.f. 9.9.95.

4. Aggrieved with the orders of
punishment of dismissal from service No.
880820521 Ex. Ct. Rajendra Singh Yadav
preferred an appeal dated 6.6.97 to the
DIGP, CRPF, Rampur (U.P.) against the
aforesaid order of Commandant 46 Bn
CRPF. The appellate authority i.e. DIGP,
CRPF, Kanpur (U.P.) considered the
appeal of the said individual and rejected
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Rajendra Singh Yadav V. Inspector General of Police, C.R.P.F., Lucknow and others
865
the same vide his office order No. R-XIII1/97-dated
9.12.97
after
due
consideration.

5. Aggrieved with the order of the
appellate authority i.e. DIGP, CRPF,
Rampur (U.P.) said Ex. Ct. Rajendra
Singh Yadav moved to High Court of
Allahabad for redressal of his grievance
and filed Writ Petition No. 27601/98.
Since the provisions of revision petition is
provided under 20 of the CRPF Act and
Rules 1955 against the orders passed, in
the appeal, the High Court Allahabad
dismissed W.P. filed by said Ex. CT on
the
ground
of
alternative
remedy.
Following the courts judgment given in
his w/p Ex. Ct. Rajendra Singh Yadav
submitted a revision petition.

6. However, after going through the
entire service career of the petitioner the
Inspector General of Police CS CRPF
Lucknow (U.P.) respondent no. 1 rejected
the revision of the petitioner vide its order
dated 4.12.1998. In the impugned order it
was mentioned that the petitioner did not
produce medical certificates during the
course of D.E. which he failed to do so
for the reasons best known to him.
However it is noticed that as per
Photocopy of medical certificate the
petitioner remained admitted in Hospital
w.e.f. 13.12.94 to 22.7.95 whereas he was
arrested by the Addl. DIGP, CC, CRPF,
Rampur (U.P.) on 22.7.95 from quarter
No.18 Type-I special GC, CRPF, Campus
Rampur, this shows that the medical
certificate is either false or fabricated. The
date/year of Medical certificate is also
tampered at two/three places and it has
not been attested by the CMO.

7. The revisional authority has also
noticed on the contention of the petitioner
that he was not given full opportunity to
defend
his
case
and
to
produce
evidence/documents in support of illness
is not tenable as he was given full
opportunity to defend his case but he did
not submit any documents/oral evidence
during the course of enquiry. Accordingly
the respondent no. 1 affirmed the order of
the appellate authority affirming the view
taken by the disciplinary authority and
dismissed the revision by its order dated
4.12.1998.

8. In the counter affidavit it has been
submitted that the petitioner was absent
from duty w.e.f. 15.12.94 till arrested by
the Addl. D.I.G.P. Group Centre, C.R.P.F.
Rampur on 20.7. 1995 from his quarter in
Group Centre C.R.P.F. Rampur. He was
released from judicial custody from
25.7.1995 and placed under suspension to
face the departmental enquiry ordered
against him. He did not produce any
evidence about his treatment in District
Hospital Budaun in his defence during the
course of departmental enquiry. Hence his
contention in this regard is not tenable. As
such according to the respondent the
petitioner was unauthorisedly absent
without any permission from 15.12.1994
till he was arrested on 20.7.1995. Willful
absence from duty without valid reasons
is a serious misconduct in the Force and
deserves dismissal under section 11 (1) of
C.R.P.F. Act 1949.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has relied upon the judgment of this court
passed is Writ Petition No. 0415 of 1998
Mirza Barkat Ali v. Inspector General of
Police, Allahabad and others on May 24,
2002, where the punishment was found to
be too harsh and the respondents were
directed to reconsider for awarding lessor
punishment. Mr. Mirza Barkat Ali was
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
866 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
not arrested for alleged absence from
duty. The writ petitioner had endeavor to
give proper explanation along with
medical certificate of the C.M.O. as such
the decision of Mirza Barkat Ali is not
applicable in the present facts and
circumstances of the present case. The
petitioner also relied on the judgment of
Shamsher Bahadur v. State of U.P. and
others reported in (1993) 1 UPLBEC 488.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances
this case is also not applicable in the
present case.

10. In (1997) 6 SCC 391 (State of
Punjab and others Vs. Bakhshish Singh)
the Supreme Court held that it is the
disciplinary authority to pass appropriate
punishment, the civil court or appellate
authority cannot substitute its own view to
that of the finding of disciplinary
authority imposed on the delinquent
official on the nature of punishment. The
court is also not to sit over the finding of
the disciplinary authority in view of the
(1997) 7 SCC 463 (Union of India and
another v. G. Ganayantham) and also
(1998) 9 SCC 220 (U.P. SRTC v. Har
Narain and others).

11. In view of the above observation
the
disciplinary
authority
and
the
reviewing authority in reference to the
direction given by this court has decided
the revision correctly, there is no scope of
any interference in these findings.

12. The writ petition is accordingly
dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.08.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28029 of 2003

Laxmi Kant

...Petitioner
Versus
The State of U.P. & others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri M.P. Sinha

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Sudhakar Pandey
S.C.

Indian Limitation Act-Section 5 read
with U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act,
Section 11 (1)-appeal alongwith delay
condonation
application-S.O.C.
Condoned
the
delay
and
on
merit
remanded the case for fresh decision-
High Court declined to interfere-the
petitioner will get opportunity to say on
merit-

Held- Para 8
In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is
clear that no error has been committed
by
the
Settlement
Officer
of
Consolidation in deciding both questions
of condonation of delay as well as on
merit. The matter having only been
remanded to Consolidation Officer, the
petitioner will have opportunity to lead
his evidence and will have his say on
merits. The impugned orders do not call
for any interference in exercise of
jurisdiction
under
Article
226
of
Constitution of India.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.)

1. Heard Sri M.P. Sinha, counsel for
the petitioner and Sri Sudhakar Pandey