# Ram Autar Singh v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2000) 3 ILRA 187
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 1997-03-03
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-autar-singh-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-39661
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

3All] Ram Autar Singh V. State of U.P. and others 187

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%
7+( +21·%/( '66,1+$ -
/( '66,1+$ -
7+( +21·%/( '(9 .$17 75,9(', -
7+( +21·%/( '(9 .$17 75,9(', -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI
5DP $XWDU 6LQJK VRQ RI 6UL 7DIVL /DO
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
6WDWH RI 83 WKURXJK +RPH 6HFUHWDU\
DQG RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6KUL 9LMDL 6LQKD
6KUL 9LMDL %DKDGXU
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6&
6KUL +3 7ULSDWKL

$UWLFOH RI WKH &RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD
WKH TXHVWLRQ RI TXDQWXP RI SXQLVKPHQW
KDV
WR
EH
GHFLGHG E\ WKH SXQLVKLQJ
DXWKRULW\ DQG WKLV &RXUW LQ H[HUFLVH RI LWV
H[WUD RUGLQDU\ MXULVGLFWLRQ VKRXOG QRW
LQWHUIHUH ZLWK WKH LPSXJQHG RUGHU RQ WKH
JURXQG RI DGHTXDF\ RU
LQDGHTXDF\ RI
WKH SXQLVKPHQW
+HOG
&RXUW LQ H[HUFLVH RI LWV H[WUDRUGLQDU\
GLVFUHWLRQDU\ MXULVGLFWLRQ XQGHU $UWLFOH
 RI WKH FRQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD VKRXOG
QRW LQWHUIHUH ZLWK WKH LPSXJQHG RUGHU RQ
WKH JURXQG RI DGHTXDF\ RU LQDGHTXDF\ RI
WKH SXQLVKPHQW SDUD

By the Court

1. Heard Shri Vijai Sinha, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner and
Shri H.P. Tripathi, learned Standing
Counsel of the State of U.P. representing
the respondents No. 1,2,3 and 6.
2. On being found guilty of the
charges of abusing and misbehaving with
his superior officers under the influence
of liquor, the petitioner, an erstwhile
constable of U.P. Police, was dismissed
from service by means of the order dated
17th May, 1988, a copy whereof is
Annexure'5' to the writ petition.

3. The dismissal order dated 17th
May, 1988, was challenged by the
petitioner by filing a claim petition before
the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal,
Lucknow which has been dismissed by
the order and judgment dated 3rd March,
1997, a copy whereof is appended to the
petition as Annexure '6' impugned in this
petition.

4. The grounds of challenge to the
dismissal order before the Tribunal were
and before this Court are that the order
was
passed
without
following
due
procedure
of
law
that
adequate
opportunity for defending himself was not
given to the petitioner and that the order
was passed without application of mind
by the punishing authority.

5. In the context of the above
grounds of challenge the Tribunal has
recorded the following findings:-

"From the perusal of relevant file
which was summoned it is clear that
departmental
enquiry
was
conducted
properly and witnesses were examined.
The petitioner was also given adequate
opportunity to defend himself. There is
nothing on record to prove that there was
any violation of principles of natural
justice or of any provision of Police Act
or Police Regulation. A copy of the
enquiry report was served upon him
alongwith
show
cause
notice
dated
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000

188
9.10.1987. As such it was not essential
for the punishing authority to give details
of the enquiry report I n the punishment
order. The punishing authority has
applied his mind and had taken into
consideration the replies of the petitioner
while passing punishment order which is
clear from the perusal of punishment
order
dated
17.5.1988
(Annexure1).
There is no illegality in the punishment
order."

6. In view of the above finding of
the
Tribunal,
which
has
not
been
demonstrated to be erroneous in any
manner, in the opinion of the Court, the
impugned order and judgment is not liable
to be interfered with.

7. The learned counsel of the
petitioner also submits that this Court may
intervene in as much as the punishment
awarded
to
the
petitioner
is
not
commensurate to his guilt. It cannot be
gainsaid that the question of quantum of
punishment has to be decided by the
punishing authority; and that this Court in
exercise of its extra-ordinary discretionary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India should not interfere
with the impugned order on the ground of
adequacy
or
inadequacy
of
the
punishment. (See. State Bank of India &
others Versus Samarendra Kishore Endow
& another, reported in Judgements Today
1994 (1) S.C. at page 217; and U.P. State
Road Transport Corpn. & others Versus
A.K. Parul, reported in Judgments Today
1998 (8) S.C.. at page 404)

8. All told, the petition lacks
substance. It is dismissed summarily.
Petition Dismissed.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$' $8*867
'$7(' $//$+$%$' $8*867
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 0& -$,1 -
7+( +21·%/( 0& -$,1 -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

&RPPLWWHH
RI
0DQDJHPHQW
%DO
9LG\DOD\D
1D\D
3XUD
6WDQOH\ 5RDG
$OODKDEDG 7KURXJK LWV 0DQDJHU
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
'LVWULFW 6RFLDO :HOIDUH 2IILFHU $OODKDEDG
 DQRWKHU
5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6KUL 6& .XVKZDKD
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6&
6KUL $.*R\DO
6KUL $QLO -DLVZDO

&RQVWLWXWLRQ
RI
,QGLD
$UWLFOH
31R
ZRUN QR SD\ ́ LV QRW DSSOLFDEOH LQ WKRVH
FDVHV ZKHUH WKHUH LV QR IXDOW RQ WKH SDUW
RI WKH FRQFHUQHG WHFKHU
+HOG ±
7KXV WKH FLUFXPVWDQFHV ZHUH FUHDWHG
E\ WKH SHWLWLRQHU DV UHVXOW RI ZKLFK VKH
FRXOG
QRW
ZRUN
GXULQJ
WKH
SHULRG
 WR 6KH FDQQRW EH
GHSULYHG RI WKH VDODU\ IRU WKH VDLG SHULRG
RQ
WKH
SULQFLSOH
3QR
ZRUN
QR
SD\ ́
EHFDXVH
RI
VXFK
D
VLWXDWLRQ
LOOHJDOO\
FUHDWHG
E\
WKH
SHWLWLRQHU
DQG
WKH
UHVSRQGHQW QR LV QRW WR EH EODPHG
WKHUHIRU
7KH DWWHPSW RI WKH SHWLWLRQHU WR GHSULYH
KHU RI WKH VDPH DQG ILOLQJ RI WKLV ZULW
SHWLWLRQ
WR
DFKLHYH
WKLV
SXUSRVH
LV
PDODILGH XQWHQDEOH DQG XQIRXQGHG
 3DUD