# Ramesh Chandra Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 1 ILRA 462
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-01-20
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 6218 of 2004
- **Bench:** Indrajeet Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ramesh-chandra-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54049
- **Pages:** 28

## Text

_Characters 0–39,896 of 96,016. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39896 for what follows._

462 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
before the Presiding Officer of the DRT. The present petition was presented before the Registrar Listing of
this Court on 18.12.2025, i.e., after the S.A. had already been listed before the Presiding Officer of the
DRT and the grievance of the petitioner that the matter ought to have been listed before the Presiding
Officer of the DRT and not before the Registrar, had already been redressed on 01.12.2025. Therefore,
besides the fact that the petitioner?s submission that the impugned notice has been issued without
jurisdiction has been rejected, the notice has not caused a failure of justice or grave injustice to the
petitioner, which is a sine qua non for maintaining a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

21. In view of the foregoing discussion, the petition lacks merits and the same is dismissed at the
admission stage.

22. Before parting with the case, it is necessary to put it on record that there are 207 matters listed
today in the list of fresh petitions, 128 matters are listed in the additional list and 51 matters are listed in the
daily IA list. The Court repetitively requested the learned Counsel for the petitioner to refrain from wasting
the time of the Court and to raise his pleas before the DRT where the SA is pending but due to his
insistence, the Court had to decide the petition by this detailed judgment, which has resulted in
unwarranted wastage of the precious time of the Court, which could have been utilized for deciding some
other matter. Normally the Court would have imposed costs for wasting time of the Court but keeping in
view that the learned Counsel for the petitioner is a young and inexperienced Counsel, who got enrolled
with the Bar Council only in the year 2024, the Court is taking a lenient view and is desisting from
imposing costs on the petitioner, but the learned Counsel should understand that although he represents his
client before the Court, he is not a mere mouthpiece of his client. In case a client insists for filing a petition
or advancing a submission which is frivolous, the Advocate should advise him not to do so and the
Advocate should refrain from accepting such a frivolous brief.

23. Besides being a representative of his client, an Advocate is a responsible officer of the Court and
he should assist the Court with his precise and concise submissions, wherever possible, with the assistance
of the relevant Laws, including the Statutes, the Rules and the judicial precedents. It is said that the Bar
and the Bench are the wheels of the same chariot. For fast and smooth running of the chariot, it is
necessary that all the wheels should move forward at the same pace and one set of wheels should not try to
put brakes on the other set of wheels of the chariot.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 462
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 20.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J.

Writ A No. 6218 of 2004

Ramesh Chandra Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
1 All. Ramesh Chandra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
463
Issue for Consideration
(1) Permissibility of raising objection of availability of alternative remedy of approaching the Tribunal, after 21
years to the pendency of writ petition, particularly when the pleading between the parties were exchanged.
(2) Significance of element of willful absence, when the charge of unauthorized absence was made.
(3) Relevancy of the reference of past conduct in the impugned order or in the inquiry report.
(4) Scope of interference in the punishment order, when it is disproportionate to the gravity of charges.

Headnotes
(A) Practice and procedure - Writ - Alternative remedy - Bar - Pleadings between the parties
were exchanged and writ petition was pending since 21 years - Effect - Objection of availability
of alternative remedy to approach Public Service Tribunal Act was raised - Permissibility. (E-1)
Held : Throwing a writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy after 21 years, particularly when parties
have exchanged their pleadings is not justified, keeping in view the mandate of Hon'ble Supreme Court as
propounded in case of M/s Utkal Highways, Engineering & Contractors v. Chief General Manager and others in
SLP (Civil) No. 14350 of 2022. [Para 14]
(B) Service law - Punishment - Removal from service - Misconduct - Charge of unauthorized
absence of 160 days - No medical report of 160 days was produced - Effect - Element of willful
absence from duty - It's significance in proving the misconduct - Past conduct of the petitioner
was referred in the removal order - Relevancy. (E-1)
Held : There may be compelling circumstances beyond his control like illness, accident, hospitalization, etc.,
and in such cases the employee cannot be held guilty of failure of devotion to duty or behaviour unbecoming
of a government servant. If allegation of unauthorized absence from duty is made, the disciplinary authority is
required to prove that the absence is willful, in the absence of such finding, the absence will not amount to
misconduct - The medical certificates are not for entire period of 160 days, for which the unauthorized
absence has been sought to be condoned, as such the medical certificates so relied by the petitioner is of
hardly any use particularly in backdrop of the analysis and reasoning given by inquiry officer that the
petitioner did not appear to be ill on the date when firstly he sought extension of his leave. [Para 36 and 44]
Further held : Independently the inquiry officer had proved the charge of unauthorized absence of 160 days
and the disciplinary authority has passed independently the order of removal from service solely on the
charge of unauthorized absence of 160 days and the past conduct is not the foundation for passing the
impugned order of removal - The order of removal from service is not based on the cumulative effect of
charges of continued misconduct to be incorrigibility and complete unfitness for police service, therefore,
mere reference of the past conduct would not amount to constitute foundation for removal from service.
Thus, the reference of past conduct in the order impugned or in the inquiry report is hardly any relevance.
[Para 52 and 55]
(C) Service law - Punishment - Removal from service - Scope of interference - Quantum of
punishment - Principle of disproportionate to the gravity of charge - Applicability. (E-1)
Held : The Court or Tribunal cannot interfere with the discretion of punishing authority in imposing particular
penalty but this rule has an exception, if the penalty is grossly disproportionate and does not commensurate
with the misconduct committed then the Court can interfere - Writ petitioner has reached the age of
superannuation and has served the department for 36 years and was promoted in interregnum and at present
is drawing provisional pension, thus in view of aforesaid admitted factual position the order of removal from
service is disapproved in the facts of this case and the matter is relegated back for fresh decision as no reply
in relation to quantum of punishment could be received despite the mandate contained in Rule 14(2) of 1991
Rules. [Para 61 and 62]

Case Law Cited
SLP (Civil) No. 14350 of 2022, M/s Utkal Highways, Engineering & Contractors vs. Chief General Manager and
others decided on 08.01.2025; Alexandar Pal Singh vs. Divisional Operating Superintendent, 1987 (ATC) 922
Supreme Court; Writ A No. 16983 of 2001, Vidya Ram vs. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Agra and others
decided on 30.01.2019; Writ A No. 16983 of 2001, Vidya Ram vs. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Agra
and others decided on 30.01.2019; Writ A No. 17878 of 2013, Manindar Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P. and
others decided on 06.02.2019; Krushna Kant B. Parmar vs. Union of India and another, (2012) 3 SCC 178;
464 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board vs. T.T. Murali Babu, (2014) 4 SCC 108; Railways vs.
Rajendra Kumar Dubey, (2021) 14 SCC 735; Chhel Singh vs. M.G.B. Gramin Bank Pali & others, (2014) 13
SCC 166; State of Punjab vs. P.L. Singla, AIR 2009 SC 1149; W.P. No. 1192 (S/S) of 2019, Sanjay Misra vs.
Director, Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute and another; Mohd. Yusuf Khan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
and others, (2010) 10 SCC 539 33; State of Punjab and Ors. vs. Ex. C. Satpal Singh, 2025 AIR SC 4011;
Central Industrial Security Force and others vs. Abrar Ali, (2017) 4 SCC 507; Service Bench No. 6202 of 2016,
State of U.P. vs. State Public Service Tribunal Indira & Ors. decided on 18.03.2016; State of U.P. vs. Singhara
Singh and others, AIR 1964 SC 358; State of U.P. and others vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772; Mirza
Barkat Ali vs. Inspector General of Police Allahabad and others, (2002) 2 UPLBEC 1871; Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No. 2316 of 1999, Ram Ujagar Yadav vs. The State of U.P. and others decided on 06.03.2006;
Chennai Metroplitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and others vs. T.T. Murali Baby, (2014) 4 SCC 108;
Union of India and others vs. Datta Linga Toshatwad, 2006 SCC (L & S) 1504. - referred to.

List of Acts
U.P. Subordinate Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1991 - Rules 4, 5,
14, 20 and 23; UP Police Regulations - Regulation 381 and 382, U.P. Public Service (Tribunal) Act, 1976 -
Section 4 (1).

List of Keywords
Unauthorized absence, Documentary evidence, Chargesheet, Opportunity of cross examination of witnesses,
Willful absence, Enquiry report, Punishment, Departmental appeal, Alternative remedy, Double jeopardy,
Deduction, Dilapidated condition, Medical certificate, Procedural lapses, Appreciation of defence evidence,
Disciplinary proceeding, Compelling circumstances, Misconduct, Withholding of increment without cumulative
effects, Illness, Delinquent employee, Consequential order, Accounting and administrative procedure,
Forfeiting of salary, Major penalty, Habitual absenteeism, Gravity of charges, Length of service, Age of
superannuation, Disproportionate.

Case Arising From
Impugned order dated 20.10.1999, 29.09.2000 and 22.05.2004 passed by the respondent.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant : H.G.S. Parihar, Sr. Adv.; Ajai Krishna Yadav; Anil Kumar Maurya; Mansha Shukla;
Meenakshi Singh; Meenakshi Singh Parihar and Vivek Mishra.
Advs. for the Respondents : Dev Prakash Mishra, A.C.S.C.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Indrajeet Shukla, J.)

For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided into the following parts:-

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SL.No.
Heading
Page Nos.

A.
FACTUAL MATRIX

02-09
B.
AVAILABILITY OF ALTERNATIVE REMEDY

09-09
C.
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

09-11
D.
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF STATE RESPONDENTS
11-13
E.
RELEVANT RULES

14-15
F.
ANALYSIS AND REASONING
15-33
1 All. Ramesh Chandra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
465
G.
CONCLUSION
33-34

1. Heard Sri Ajai Krishna Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Dev Prakash Mishra,
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel representing the State respondents.

2. By means of present writ proceedings, the petitioner has set up challenge to the impugned
order dated 14.04.2000 passed by 4th respondent removing the petitioner from service contained as
Annexure-1 to this writ petition and impugned order of the same date forfeiting the salary of 160
days for unauthorized absence, from 14.05.1999 to 20.10.1999. The petitioner has further assailed
the validity and correctness of order dated 29.09.2000 passed under appeal by 3rd respondent and
the revisional order dated 22.05.2004 passed by 2nd respondent contained as Annexure-3 and 4
respectively to the writ petition.

A. FACTUAL MATRIX

3. Brief facts of present writ petition are that, the petitioner, who happened to be constable in
disciplined force i.e. Provincial Arms Constabulary (PAC) was posted in 25th Battalion, Police
Head Quarter, Raebareli proceeded for casual leave of 2 days on 12.05.1999 and as such he had to
report the duties on 15.05.1999, but instead of reporting his duties on 15.05.1999 he became absent
till 20.10.1999 i.e. almost 160 days and in this background a preliminary inquiry was directed and
conducted, thereafter, regular inquiry was instituted by means of chargesheet dated 05.01.2000,
primarily with the charge of unauthorized absenteeism. The relevant part of the chargesheet is
extracted as under:-

"आपको एतद्दवारा र्नम्नानुसार आरोपपत क्रकया िाता हैः-

यह क्रक िब आप वषत 1999 में "ई" दल में र्नयुक्त थे, तब ददनांक 12.5.99 से स्ट्वीकृत 02 ददवस
आकजस्ट्मक अवकाश पर प्रस्ट्थान क्रकया। बाद समाप्त अवकाश ददनांक 14.5.99 को वापस आना था, परन्तु
आप समय से वापस न आकर ददनांक 20.11.99 को 160 ददवस मनमाने तौर पर अनुपजस्ट्थत रहकर आमद
कराई।

इस प्रकार आप कततव्य के प्रर्त लापरवाही, उदासीनता एवं अनुशासनीनता के दोषी पाये गये।

साक्ष्य जिन पर आरोप के समथतन में पवचार क्रकये िाने का प्रस्ट्ताव हैः-

1- श्री महेश प्रसाद दबूेे, सशपवर पाल- प्रारजम्भक िाुँच करना प्रस्ट्तापवत करेंगे।

2- पी०सी० श्री सशवराम कुशवाहा, िी दल- दद० 12.5.99 से 02 ददवस आकजस्ट्मक अवकाश स्ट्वीकृत
करने की पुजष्ट करेंगे।

3- नायक 31997 सरदारअली "ई" दल- अवकाश पर रवानगी करने की पुजष्ट करेंगे।

4- आरिी 32087 मूलचन्र गौतम वादहनी िी०िी० लेिक- अवकाश अऩुपजस्ट्थर्त से आमद करना
प्रमाणणत करेंगे।
466 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

5- आरिी 32168 मु० इसराइल अली "ई" दल- अवकाश से अनुपजस्ट्थर्त की रपट अंक्रकत करना
प्रमाणणत करेंगे।
असभलेिीय साक्ष्य
---------------------------------

1- स्ट्वीकृत आकजस्ट्मक अवकाश प्राथतना पत्र

2- िी०िी० "ई" दल व मुख्यालय शािा की नकल रपट

3- आवागमन रजिस्ट्टर एल०पी० मेनगेट

इस प्रकार उपरोक्तानुसार आप ददनांक 12.5.99 से स्ट्वीकृत 02 ददवस आकजस्ट्मक अवकाश पर
प्रस्ट्थान करने, बाद समाप्त अवकाश ददनांक 14.5.99 को वापस न आकर ददनांक 20.10.99 को 160 ददवस
मनमाने तौर पर अनुपजस्ट्थत रहकर आमद कराने तथा कततव्य के प्रर्त लापरवाही, उदासीनता एवं
अनुशासनहीनता के दोषी हैं।

एतद्द्वारा आपसे आरोप के उत्तर में अपने बचाव का सलणित पववरण ददनांक 13.1.2000 को या
उसके पूवत प्रस्ट्तुत करने की अपेिा की िाती है। आपको सचेत क्रकया िाता है क्रक अर्ोहस्ट्तािरी द्वारा
अनुमन्य समय के भीतर आपसे ऐसा कोई पववरण प्राप्त नहीं होता है तो यह अवर्ारणा की िायेगी क्रक
आपको कुछ नहीं प्रस्ट्तुत करना है, आपके मामलें में तद्नुसार आदेश पाररत कर ददया िाएगा।

साथ ही साथ आपसे अर्ोहस्ट्तािरी को सलणित रूप से यह सूचचत करने की अपेिा की िाती है क्रक
क्या आप व्यजक्तगत सुनवाई के सलए इच्छुक है और यदद आप क्रकसी साक्ष्य या परीिण प्रर्त परीिा करना
चाहते हैं तो अपने सलणित पववरण के साथ उसका नाम और पता और साक्ष्य का जिसे प्रत्येक ऐसे सािी से
देने की प्रत्याशा की िायेगी, संक्षिप्त पववरण प्रस्ट्तुत करने की अपेिा की िाती है।"

4. In the chargesheet as many as five witnesses were proposed to be orally examined and
certain documentary evidence exhibiting unauthorized absence was also appended with the
chargesheet.

5. After receiving the chargesheet, the petitioner submitted his reply on 17.01.2000 before
inquiry officer mentioning therein that petitioner had to report on 15.05.1999 but he could not come
back as such he sent an application for extension of leave. The inquiry officer in order to prove the
charges of overstay/unauthorized absence examined the witnesses cited in the calendar of
chargesheet and the record transpires that adequate opportunity of cross-examination of witnesses
was afforded but same was not availed by the petitioner, as such the oral evidence/testimony of
witnesses examined by inquiry officer remained unimpeached.

6. The petitioner, in order to prove his case examined two doctors viz Dr. Firoz Alam. Ansari,
Medical Officer, New Primary Health Center, Sahson, District, Allahabad and Dr. Paras Nath Rai,
Medical Officer, Primary Health Center, Kotwa, Allahabad. While taking plea of ill health, the
petitioner had taken an alternate plea of collapse of his house, which was in dilapidated condition to
1 All. Ramesh Chandra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
467
justify his absence and as such, petitioner claimed that he was busy in construction of his house and
the absence cannot be said to be willful, rather due to compelling circumstances. Just to prove
aforesaid plea of collapse of house, the petitioner got examined, Jabar Singh, the then Gram
Pradhan.

7. The inquiry officer examined the defence witnesses viz Jabar Singh (Pradhan of the
Village), Dr. Firoz Alam. Ansari and Dr. Paras Nath Rai in extenso.

8. After meticulous examination of the witnesses, the inquiry officer submitted the inquiry
report on 21.03.2000, which is contained as Annexure-7 to the writ petition. To demonstrate the
charge having been proved, the relevant portion of enquiry report is extracted hereunder:-

"असभयोिन पि एवं बचाव पि की कायतवाही समाप्त हो िाने के बाद मैंने पत्रावली पर उपलब्र्
समस्ट्त साक्षियों के बयान, असभलेिों एवं आरोपपत पि द्वारा बचाव पि में प्रेपषत स्ट्पष्टीकरण एवं
स्ट्पष्टीकरण के साथ प्रेपषत ग्राम प्रर्ान के द्वारा घर बनवाने व दूसरे घर में रहने व घर चगरने का प्रमाण-पत्र,
बचाव पि के गवाहानों के बयानों का गहनता से अध्ययन क्रकया। उपरोक्त गवाहानों के बयानों से यह
प्रमाणणत होता है क्रक आरोपपत आरिी 32091 रमेश चन्र ससंह ददनांक-11-5-99 को 02 ददवस आकजस्ट्मक
अवकाश पर 'जिला कारागार लिनऊ ई दल से रवाना हुआ। समय से न आकर ददनांक-20-10-99 को 159
ददवस 11 घंटा 10 समनट अनुपजस्ट्थत रहकर अपनी इच्छानुप्तार वापस आकर वादहनी मुख्यालय में आमद
कराया जिसको पुजष्ट सुबूत पि के सािी दलनायक श्री अवर्नारायण-र्तवारी, पीसी श्री सशवरामकुशवाहा,
कम्पनी िीिी लेिक नायक 31997 -सरदार अली, वादहनी िीिी लेिक आरिी 32087 मूलचन्र गौतम के
बयानों से होती है। आरिी के कम्पनी मुख्यालय 'ई'दल जिला कारागार लिनऊ में 02 ददवस अवकाश पर
आमद की र्तचथ से अवगत होकर घर िाना तथा वापसी के ददन ददनांक-14-5-99 को सेनानायक के नाम
रजिस्ट्री पत्र. 05-ददवस आकजस्ट्मक अवकाश उसी क्रम में बढ़ाने के सलये यह अंक्रकत कर देना क्रक उसका
मकान ददनांक-12-5-99 को आुँर्ी तूफान में चगर गया है बच्चों के रहने, लायक नहीं है तथा स्ट्पष्टीकरण में
ददनांक-12-5-99 से स्ट्वयं को पवमार होना अंक्रकत करना दोनों में पवरोर्ाभाष है, जिससे यह ससद्र् होता है क्रक
वह झूठ बोला है पवमार नहीं था, वरना वह ददनांक-14-5-99 के मकान चगर-िाने के सम्बन्र् में ददये गये
रजिस्ट्री में पवमार होना अवश्य अंक्रकत करता। यह मान सलया िाय क्रक उसका मकान ददनांक-12-5-99 को
चगर गया 05 ददवस उसी क्रम में अवकाश बढ़ाने के सलये रजिस्ट्री ददया क्रफर भी वह 05 ददवस बाद वापस
डियूटी पर नहीं आया न ही क्रकसी प्रकार की पवमारी या इलािरत रहने की कोई सूचना ही ददया, न ही वादहनी
मुख्यालय आकर अवकाश ही स्ट्वीकृत कराने का प्रयाप्त क्रकया ससफत पवमारी का बहाना बनाकर मनमाने तौर
पर अनचर्कृत रूप से अनुपजस्ट्थत रहा व िाक्टर से समलकर पवमारी का प्रमाण-पत्र बनवा कर मेडिकल
अवकाश का उपभोग क्रकया। अगर वह पवमार था तो उसे र्नयमतः अपने जिले के पुसलस-अर्ीिक से
समलकर ससकबुक लेकर आमद रवानगी के साथ पुसलस अस्ट्पताल जिला अस्ट्पताल िाता तथा भती होकर
468 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
अपना पवचर्वत स्ट्वास्ट्थ्य परीिण कराने के उपरान्त इलाि कराता व इस कायातलय को सूचचत करता तथा
चचक्रकत्सालय से मुक्त होने के उपरान्त चचक्रकत्सक के द्वारा ददये गये रेस्ट्ट प्रमाण-पत्र के साथ वादहनी
मुख्यालय आकर अवकाश स्ट्वीकृत कराता, तदोपरान्त अवकाश का उपभोग करता परन्तु वह मनमाने तौर
पर अपने इजच्छत अस्ट्पताल िाकर वाह्य रोगी के रूप में इलाि कराया और एक भी ददन चचक्रकत्सालय में
भती नहीं रहा। इतनी लम्बी अवचर् तक वाह्य रोगों के रूप में इलाि कराना संदेहास्ट्पद है िो यह प्रमाणणत
करता है क्रक वह पवमार नहीं था बजल्क अपनी अनुपजस्ट्थत अवचर् को प्रमाणणत करने के सलए चचक्रकत्सकों से
व्यजक्तगत रूप से स्ट्वयं द्वारा पवमारी बताकर उनसे दवा सलिाया व चचक्रकत्सा प्रमाण-पत्र बनवाया, िो
पुसलस रेगुलेशन के प्रस्ट्तर 381 एवं 383 का स्ट्पष्ट उल्लंघन है तथा पवना क्रकसी अचर्कारी के संज्ञान में लाये
कततव्य से पवना स्ट्वीकृपत्त अवकाश अनुमर्त के अनुपजस्ट्थत हो िाना उसकी घोर लापरवाही एवं
अनुशासनहीनता का पररचायक है।

बचाव पि के सािी ग्राम प्रर्ान श्री िबर ससंह ग्राम बभनकुईयाुँ थाना-सरायईनायत, िनपदइलाहाबाद के वयानों से यह प्रमाणणत है क्रक आरिी रमेश चन्र ससंह का मकान 2-3 साल पहले चगर गया था
नये मकान में 2-3 साल से रह रहे हैं, लेक्रकन अपने ददनांक-4-2-2000 के मकान बनवाने के प्रमाण-पत्र में
मकान चगरना मई सन्-1999 अंक्रकत क्रकये हैं, दोनों में पवरोर्ाभाष है जिससे यह स्ट्पष्ट होता है क्रक आरिी
रमेश चन्र ससंह ने मकान चगरने का प्रमाण-पत्र ग्राम प्रर्ान से कहकर अपने मन माक्रफक बनवाया है। ग्राम
प्रर्ान ने पवमारी के बारे में कुछ नहीं बताया। अगर आरोपी आरिी रमेश चन्र ससंह वास्ट्तव में पवमार होता
तो ग्राम प्रर्ान को अवश्य-मालूम होता। मेरे द्वारा उक्त आरोपपत आरिी के घर िाकर उसके मकान का
भौर्तक रूप से र्नरीिण भी क्रकया गया। मकान तो चगरा था परन्तु काफी ददन का, दो कमरे का पक्का ईंट का
मकान बनवाया है जिसकी ससफत ददवाल िडी है छत नहीं पडा है। जिस मकान में रह रहा है वह मकान कच्चा
समट्टी का बना हुआ है, मिबूत है, रहने की कोई परेशानी नहीं है। वह मकान बनवाने व पवमार होने का ससफत
नाटक क्रकया है उसे ऐसी कोई परेशानी नहीं थी क्रक वह डियूटी पर नहीं आ सकता था। क्योंक्रक ग्राम-प्रर्ान के
बयान से यह भी स्ट्पष्ट है क्रक उसके पपता घर की िेती स्ट्वयं करते हैं और िरूरत पडने पर मिदूर भी रि लेते
हैं। उसके पपता िेती कर सकते हैं तो मकान भी अपनी देि-रेि में बन वा सकते थे। आरोपी ने मकान बनवाने
में 30 ददवस लगना बताया है, ग्राम प्रर्ान ने चार-पाुँच माह, िबक्रक मेरे द्वारा आरोपी के घर के भौर्तक
र्नरीिण में पाया गया क्रक वह िो पक्के ईंट का मकान बनवाया है दो छोटे-छोटे कमरे व एक छोटा बरामदा है
ससफत ददवाल िडी है छत नहीं पडा है वैसा ढांचा िडा करने में ससफत 15 ददवस का समय लग सकता है लेक्रकन
उसने 30 ददवस का समय लगना बताया है। यहाुँ यह भी स्ट्पष्ट है क्रक िब उक्त आरोपपत आरिी पवमार था
डियूटी पर नहीं आ सकता था तो घर कैसे बनवाया, पवमार होकर िब घर बनवा सकता है तो डियूटी पर वापस
भी आ सकता है जिससे जस्ट्थर्त स्ट्वतः स्ट्पष्ट हो िाती है क्रक वह पवमार नहीं था ससफत पवमारी का बहाना
बनाया है। िा० क्रफरोि आलम नवीन प्रा० स्ट्वा०-केन्र सहसो-इलाहाबाद के बयान से यह प्रमाणणत होता है क्रक
उक्त आरिी ने बुिार से पीडित होना बताया जिस पर िाक्टर ने उसे कुछ दवा ददया व कुछ बािार से क्रय
1 All. Ramesh Chandra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
469
करने को कहा व ददनांक-12-5-99 से 10-6-99 तक रेस्ट्ट ददया लेक्रकन ओ. पी. िी. रजिस्ट्टर में ससफत 3 सप्ताह
ही अंक्रकत क्रकया था, पूछने पर िाक्टर ने बताया क्रक 2-4 ददवस और बढ़ा ददया था सलिने को भूल गया था।
िाक्टर ने यह भी स्ट्पष्ट क्रकया है क्रक वह बीच-बीच में आते रहे मगर रजिस्ट्टर में अंक्रकत नहीं क्रकया, जिससे
स्ट्पष्ट है क्रक वह पवमार नहीं था ससफत िाक्टर से समलकर मेडिकल प्रमाण-पत्र प्राप्त क्रकया है क्योंक्रक अगर वह
वास्ट्तव में पवमार रहता, बीच-बीच में िाक्टर को ददिाता तो वह ओ. पी. िी. रजिस्ट्टर में अंक्रकत होता मगर
दवा लेना या बीच-बीच में ददिाना कहीं ओ. पी. िी. रजिस्ट्टर में अंक्रकत नहीं है जिसकी पजष्ट िाक्टर क्रफरोि
आलम ने स्ट्वयं क्रकया है। िाक्टर द्वारा रजिस्ट्टर में 3 सप्ताह का रेस्ट्ट देना तथा मेडिकल प्रमाण-पत्र में 30
ददवस अंक्रकत करना व बयान में 28 ददवस का मेडिकल रेस्ट्ट देना ही यह स्ट्पष्ट करता है क्रक िाक्टर ने ससफत
उक्त आरिी के कहने पर मेडिकल प्रमाण-पत्र दे ददया है पवमार नहीं था। िाक्टर पारस नाथ राय प्रा० स्ट्वा०
केन्र कोटवा-इलाहाबाद के बयान से यह प्रमाणणत होता है क्रक उसने अपनी अनुपजस्ट्थर्त अवचर् को प्रमाणणत
करने के सलये पेशाब में िलन व बुिार बताकर चचक्रकत्सा प्रमाण-पत्र प्राप्त क्रकया है। िाक्टर के कथनानुसार
उसे अस्ट्पताल से दवा भी नहीं दी गयी है पचे पर दवा सलिी गयी तथा अपने अचर्कार िेत्र में ससफत चार
सप्ताह का रेस्ट्ट देने का अचर्कार बताया है िबक्रक मेडिकल प्रमाण-पत्र में उसे ददनांक-11-6-99 से 27-7-99
तक 47 ददवस का मेडिकल अवकाश देना अंक्रकत है। िाक्टर के कथनानुसार उसे 47 ददवस में क्रकतने ददन
दवा दी गयी या चेकअप कराया गया नहीं पता न' ही कहीं ओ. पी. िी. रजिस्ट्टर में ही अंक्रकत है जिससे स्ट्पष्ट
है क्रक वह पवमार नहीं था ससफत िाक्टर से समलकर पवमारी का प्रमाण-पत्र प्राप्त क्रकया है क्रफर भी आरोपपत
आरिी ने ददनांक-12-5-99 से 10-6-99 तक िाक्टर क्रफरोि आलम अन्सारी नवीन प्राथसमक स्ट्वास्ट्थ्य केन्र
सहसो-इलाहाबाद के यहाुँ वाह्य रोगी के रूप में इलािरत रहा। अपने स्ट्पष्टीकरण में यह अंक्रकत क्रकया है क्रक
िाक्टर के क्रफटनेस के बाद वह ददनांक-10-6-99 को क्रफर रात में पवमार हो गया तथा ददनांक-11-6-99 से दूसरे
िाक्टर श्री, पारसनाथ राय प्रा० स्ट्वा० केन्र-कोटवा-इलाहाबाद को ददिाना अंक्रकत क्रकया तथा ददनांक-27-799 तक वाह्य रोगी के रूप में इलािरत रहना अंक्रकत क्रकया है िो र्नयमानुकूल नहीं है क्योंक्रक िब िा०-श्री
क्रफरोि आलम अन्सारी ने ददनांक-10-6-99 को उक्त आरिी को क्रफटनेश ददया वह घर गया उसकी हालत
पुनः उसी रात में िराब हो गयी उसने दूसरे िाक्टर श्री पारसनाथ राय प्रा० स्ट्वा० केन्र-कोटवा-इलाहाबाद को
ददिाया िबक्रक उसे उसी िॉक्टर के पास िाना चादहए था जिसने क्रफटनेश ददया था, परन्तु वह अनुपजस्ट्थत व
कततव्य से दूर रहने के सलए दूसरे िाक्टर का सहारा सलया, उसे चादहए था क्रक ददनांक-10-6-99 को िाक्टर
क्रफरोि आलम अन्सारी से क्रफटनेश समलने के बाद उसी ददन अपने कततव्य पर वापस आता परन्तु ऐसा नहीं
क्रकया िो कततव्य के प्रर्त घोर लापरवाहों एवं अनुशासनहीनता का द्योतक है तथा उसके घर से प्राथसमक
स्ट्वास्ट्थ्य केन्र सहसे-इलाहाबाद लगभग 2-3 क्रकमी. है व प्रा० स्ट्वा० केन्र कोटवा-इलाहाबाद लगभग 10-12
क्रकमी. की दूरी पर है वहाुँ िाने का औचचत्य ही नहीं बनता। क्रफर भी िाक्टर श्री पारस-नाथ राय प्रा० स्ट्वा०
केन्र कोटवा-इलाहाबाद द्वारा उक्त आरिी-32091 रमेश चन्र ससंह को ददनांक-27-7-99 को क्रफट घोपषत
कर ददया, उसको तत्काल वादहनी मुख्यालय आना चादहए था परन्तु वापस डियूटी पर न, आकर पवना सूचना,
470 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
पवना अवकाश, पवना मेडिकल ही मनमाने तौर पर घर ही रहा, िो इसके कततव्य के प्रर्त घोर लापरवाही व
उदासीनता तथा अनुशासनहीनता का पररचायक है। आरोपपत पि द्वारा आरोप पत्र के उत्तर में प्रस्ट्तुत
स्ट्पष्टीकरण एवं बचाव में प्रस्ट्तुत स्ट्पष्टीकरण में ऐसा कोई पवन्दू नहीं रिा गया जिसपर पवश्वास क्रकया िा
सके और जिसके आर्ार पर उसके पवरूद्र् लगाये गये आरोप प्रमाणणत न हो। उसके द्वारा दलनायक के
नाम ददया गया आकजस्ट्मक अवकाश का प्राथतना-पत्र को पीसी के द्वारा ही स्ट्वीकृत करके अवकाश छोिे िाने
का तकत भी मान्य नहीं है क्योंक्रक दलनायक के कम्पनी भार पर न रहने पर कम्पनी के भार पर र्नयुक्त पीसी
को 03 ददवस अवकाश देने का अचर्कार है।"

9. After receipt of the inquiry report dated 21.03.2000 a show cause notice was issued to the
petitioner on 21.03.2000 itself in relation to the punishment proposed. Thereafter, the reminder
notices were also issued on 24.03.2000 and 29.03.2000 but admittedly, the petitioner did not file
any reply despite repeated opportunities offered.

10. In place of filing a reply to the show cause notice, against proposed punishment, the
petitioner knocked the doors of U.P. Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow by filing Claim Petition
No.378 of 2000 and it has been averred in paragraph no.21 of the writ petition that the said claim
petition was finally decided on 17.04.2000 directing the authorities to provide reasonable
opportunity to submit reply of show cause notice (the order of tribunal has not been brought on
record). Thus, before order of Tribunal could be brought to notice of departmental authorities, the
impugned order of punishment was passed.

11. The impugned order of punishment removing the petitioner from service was passed on
17.04.2000, which was served upon the petitioner against which the petitioner preferred
departmental appeal as contemplated under Rule 20 of U.P. Subordinate Police Officers of the
Subordinate Ranks (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1991 (in short '1991 Rules') and the appeal so
preferred was dismissed vide order dated 29.09.2000 against which revision was preferred by virtue
of Rule 23 of 1991 Rules, which too met with same fate, vide impugned order dated 12.03.2004.

B. AVAILABILITY OF ALTERNATIVE REMEDY

12. Before examination of matter on merits, learned counsel for the State opposed the writ
petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy, stating that the efficacious remedy lies
before U.P. Public Service Tribunal against the orders impugned under Section 4 (1) of U.P. Public
Service Tribunal Act.

13. In response to the said objection, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this writ
petition was entertained way back on 15.10.2004 and the pleadings are complete, as such the writ
petition may not be thrown after lapse of 21 years.

 14. Insofar as the plea of alternative remedy is concerned, this Court is of the firm view that
throwing a writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy after 21 years, particularly when
parties have exchanged their pleadings is not justified, keeping in view the mandate of Hon'ble
1 All. Ramesh Chandra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
471
Supreme Court as propounded in case of M/s Utkal Highways, Engineering & Contractors v.
Chief General Manager and others in SLP (Civil) No.14350 of 2022. Hence, the Court has
proceeded to hear the matter on merits.

C. SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

15. The submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner are precisely to the effect that the
impugned order of punishment, appellate order and revisional order are absolutely illegal, arbitrary
and without application of mind and all three authorities have failed to examine the material facts
and grounds raised in its correct perspective, resulting confirmation of order of removal from
service.

16. Further submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the inquiry officer failed to
consider the medical certificates and the statement of doctors certifying the illness and as such the
inquiry so conducted is erroneous.

17. Learned counsel for the petitioner alternatively submitted that in the factual backdrop of
the present case the major punishment of removal ought not to have been awarded.

18. The further submission is, the punishment so awarded by disciplinary authority is based on
recommendation of inquiry officer and inquiry officer erred in recommending punishment for
removal from service and such recommendation is beyond the competence of inquiry officer.

19. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that from the date of reinstatement till
attaining the age of superannuation nothing adverse was reported against the petitioner as such if
this order is examined on the touchstone of reformative theory equally applicable to service
jurisprudence then also the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration of this Court qua the
quantum of punishment.

20. Lastly, the petitioner has strenuously urged that the petitioner was permitted to assume his
duties in the month of October, 1999 and continued as such till March, 2000 and was paid salary
for the said period as such there was no reason and prudence as why on one hand the order of
withholding six month salary of the petitioner treating the said period as absence from duty has
been passed and for the same conduct he has been removed from service. Thus, the punishment has
been inflicted in twin folds for the same charges, which amounts to double jeopardy being violative
of Article 20 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the punishment inflicted does not commensurate
with the gravity of the charges and as such the award of major penalty is also disproportionate.

D. SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF STATE RESPONDENTS

21. Per contra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submitted that every procedural
rigour as contemplated, under 1991 Rules have been followed and petitioner could not raise any
ground pointing out any procedural flaw with respect to inquiry conducted including conduct of
oral inquiry, grant of opportunity of hearing etc.
472 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

22. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submitted that habitual absenteeism is the past
track record of writ petitioner, and he made himself absent unauthorizedly for 10 times. He further
points out that, since the recruitment of the petitioner as a Constable in 1984, he has made himself
absent on 10 occasions, that is for a total period of 356 days and took medical leave four times,
which is 97 days total till 1995. He was punished with 56 days pay deduction and in 1997-98 he
was found guilty of unauthorized absence of 82 and 79 days respectively and he was punished with
censure entry along with 8 other minor punishments. Thus, petitioner require no leniency in
aforesaid factual background.

23. Learned Counsel for the State has invited the attention of this Court that the petitioner
reported to the duties on 16.06.1999 as per G.D. No.21 at 17.00 and as such he was relieved for
joining at Company Headquarter, Gonda, but instead of going to Gonda, he again went to his home
and he remained unauthorizedly absent. The copy of G.D.No.21 dated 16.06.1999 is contained as
Annexure C.A.3 to the counter affidavit. Thereafter, the petitioner reported to the duties on
20.10.1999.

24. It is further submitted, when preliminary inquiry was directed vide order dated 21.11.1999,
then the petitioner submitted the medical certificates with respect to which the detailed discussions
have been made not only in the inquiry report but here-in-before also.

25. Learned counsel for the State drew attention of this Court towards Annexure No.CA.1 and
C.A.2 appended to the counter affidavit, which is application dated 14.05.1999 for extension of
leave for 5 days and the reasons mentioned in the said application states that the house of the
petitioner being in dilapidated condition collapsed in the storm and in the said application, no plea
of 'illness' is mentioned, which is the first opportunity to justify the over-staying/ absenteeism,
hence the plea of illness is cock and bull story having been cooked subsequently. The medical
certificate relied upon by the petitioner was allegedly issued on 10.06.1999 contained as Annexure
C.A.5 demonstrates that the doctors have certified that the petitioner was ill (suffering from typhoid
fever) since 12.05.1999 to 10.06.1999. The said certificate appears to be ex-facie incorrect as in the
application dated 14.05.1999 (Annexure C.A2) petitioner has not mentioned that he was ill,
meaning thereby, the lame excuse of illness has been discovered by the petitioner at some
subsequent point of time. Secondly, the medical certificate contained as Annexure C.A.6 to the
counter affidavit issued by different medical officers, i.e. Dr. Firoz Alam. Ansari and Dr. Paras
Nath Rai demonstrate that they have certified the illness of the petitioner from 11.06.1999 to
27.07.1999 and issued the fitness certificate for resumption of duties on 27.07.1999. These
certificates are again in continuation so far, the period of illness is concerned. The petitioner had to
explain the over staying/unauthorized absence from 15.05.1999 till 20.10.1999 and petitioner had
not submitted any medical certificate after the period of 27.07.1999. In such a background the
medical certificates have rightly been discarded by the inquiry officer and in exercise of judicial
review under Article 226 of Constitution of India, this Court may not embark upon the correctness
of such certificates, which did not inspire confidence of the inquiry officer.

26. Learned Standing Counsel has further invited attention of this Court towards findings
contained in the inquiry report, in which the inquiry officer had categorically found that the plea of
1 All. Ramesh Chandra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
473
illness and collapse of house are contradicting each other as evident from the defence
evidence/applications filed by none other than the petitioner.

27. The inquiry officer did not find that the petitioner was admitted in the Hospital even for a
single day. The inquiry officer had further taken note of Regulation 381 and 382, which requires
that officer and constable, who fell ill during leave must apprise to the Superintendent of Police in
writing, but no such compliance of Regulation 381 and 382 has been made, which has been
incorporated for the purpose of bonafide illness.

28. Learned counsel for the State lastly invited attention of this Court to the oral statements of
the doctors certifying illness and the statements of Gram Pradhan, who had deposed with respect to
collapse and reconstruction of the house but the statements of these witnesses did not find favour
during inquiry for the detailed reasons recorded in the inquiry report and this Court would not
embark on the truthfulness of their statements as this Court cannot function as an appellate
authority to the disciplinary proceedings already conducted, except with a limited interference,
which is permissible within the four corners of judicial review, that is with respect to procedural
lapses but the appreciation of defence evidence by enquiry officer does not seem to be perverse on
the basis of material available before this court.

E. RELEVANT RULES

29. It is apt to have glimpse of relevant rules under which disciplinary proceedings have been
undertaken i.e. the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and
Appeal) Rules, 1991:-

"4. Punishment:-(1) The following punishment may, for good and sufficient reasons and
as hereinafter provided, be imposed upon a Police Officer, namely-

a) Major Penalties-

(i) Dismissal from service.

(ii) Removal from service.

(iii) Reduction in rank including reduction to a lower-scale or to a lower stage in a time
scale.

(b) Minor Penalties-

(i) Withholding of promotion.

(ii) Fine not exceeding one months' pay.

(iii) Withholding of increment, including stoppage at an efficiency bar.

(iv) Censure.

Sub Rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Rules 1991 provides as under:-

5. Procedure for award of punishment.-(1) The cases in which major punishments
enumerated in Clause (a) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 may be awarded, shall be dealt with in
accordance with the procedure laid down in sub-rule (1) of Rule 14.

Sub-rule (1) of Rule 14 of the Rules 1991 postulates as under:-
474 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

14. Procedure for conducting departmental proceedings- (1) Subject to the provisions
contained in these Rules the departmental proceedings in the case referred to in sub-rule (1) of
Rule 5 against the Police Officers, may be conducted in accordance with the procedure laid down
in Appendix I. Appendix I of the Rules 1991 provides as under:-

"PROCEDURE RELATING TO THE CONDUCT OF DEPARTMENTAL PROCEEDINGS
AGAINST POLICE OFFICER
[See RULE 14(1)]

Upon institution of a formal enquiry such police officer against whom the enquiry has
been instituted shall be informed in writing of the grounds on which it is proposed to take action
and shall be afforded an adequate opportunity of defending himself. The grounds on which it is
proposed to take action shall be used in the form of a definite charge or charges as in Form-1
appended to these Rules which shall be communicated to the charged police officer and which shall
be so clear and precise as to give sufficient indication to the charged police officer of the facts and
circumstances against him. He shall be required, within a reasonable time, to put in, in a written
statement of his defence and to state whether he desires to be heard in person. If he so desires, or if
the Inquiry officer so directs an oral enquiry shall be held in respect of such of the allegation as
are not admitted. At that enquiry such oral evidence will be recorded as the Inquiry Officer
considers necessary. The charged police officer shall be entitled to cross-examine the witnesses, to
give evidence in person and to have such witnesses called as he may wish:

Provided that the Inquiry Officer may, for sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing,
refuse to call a witness. The proceedings shall contain a sufficient record of the evidence and
statement of the findings and the ground thereof. The Inquiry Officer may also separately from
these proceedings make his own recommendation regarding the punishment to be imposed on the
charged police officer."

Sub Rule (2) of Rule 5 of the Rules 1991 provides as under:-

(2) The cases in which minor punishments enumerated in Clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of
Rule 4 may be awarded, shall be dealt with in accordance with the procedure laid down in sub-rule
(2) of Rule 14.

Sub-rule (2) of Rule 14 of the Rules 1991 postulates as under:-