# Smt. Simran Jeet Kaur v. State of U.P. and Others

- **Citation:** (2006) 2 ILRA 837
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2005-09-29
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13478 of 2006
- **Bench:** Arun Tandon
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-simran-jeet-kaur-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-40664
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

(punishment and Appeal) Rules 1991Section-8 B (2) proviso B Dispension of
Departmental Enquiry-Petitioner a sub
inspector-suspended on the basis of
episode telecast by News Channel-in
preliminary
enquiry
found
guilty
of
demand of illegal gratifications-without
holding enquiry decision for dismissalheld-contrary
to
the
provisions
of
Section
8
(2)
proviso
(B)-can
not
sustained-direction issued to conclude
the
departmental
enquiry
within
3
months.

Held: Para 6

From the impugned order it is apparent
that the mandate of Rule 8 (2) Proviso
(B) has not been carried out and
absolutely no reasons for dispensation
with the departmental enquiry before
dismissing the petitioner from service
have been recorded in writing as to why
it was not reasonably practicable to hold
such an enquiry In such circumstances
the
order
not
being
supported
by
sufficient
reasons
recorded
for
dispensing with the enquiry is hit by Rule
838 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
8 (2) Proviso (B), and, therefore, cannot
be legally sustained.

## Text

2 All] Smt. Simran Jeet Kaur V. State of U.P. and others
837
dated 29.9.2005 in Writ Petition of Ram
Kumar vs. State has held that State
Government has got a right to settle the
fisheries lease on the basis of priorities in
stead of public auction. The Full Bench in
para 29, which has been quoted above,
has clearly held that fisheries lease should
be settled through public auction so that
every person belonging to the preferential
category may know about it and in case
more than one person belonging to
preferential category are interested in
taking the lease, then it shall be settled
through auction. The Government Order
dated 23.2.2006 is clearly based upon
wrong interpretation of the Full Bench
Authority. Hence it shall not be given
effect to. Fisheries lease shall be settled
strictly in accordance with Full Bench
authority which clearly mandates that a
date for public auction shall be advertised
in news paper. It is needless to add that
the advertisement must appear at least
about a week before the date of auction.
However, in case only one person
belonging to preferential category comes
forward on the advertised date, then
fisheries lease shall be settled in his
favour. In case more than one person
belonging to preferential category as
provided in the Government Order dated
17.10.1995 intend to take the fisheries
lease, then it shall be settled through
auction amongst them. In case no person
belonging to preferential category is
present on the date of auction then general
auction amongst all the participants shall
take place.

Petition Allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.03.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13478 of 2006

Smt. Simran Jeet Kaur
...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri U.N. Sharma
Sri Shishir Tandon
Sri Anil Kr. Bajpai

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks
(punishment and Appeal) Rules 1991Section-8 B (2) proviso B Dispension of
Departmental Enquiry-Petitioner a sub
inspector-suspended on the basis of
episode telecast by News Channel-in
preliminary
enquiry
found
guilty
of
demand of illegal gratifications-without
holding enquiry decision for dismissalheld-contrary
to
the
provisions
of
Section
8
(2)
proviso
(B)-can
not
sustained-direction issued to conclude
the
departmental
enquiry
within
3
months.

Held: Para 6

From the impugned order it is apparent
that the mandate of Rule 8 (2) Proviso
(B) has not been carried out and
absolutely no reasons for dispensation
with the departmental enquiry before
dismissing the petitioner from service
have been recorded in writing as to why
it was not reasonably practicable to hold
such an enquiry In such circumstances
the
order
not
being
supported
by
sufficient
reasons
recorded
for
dispensing with the enquiry is hit by Rule
838 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
8 (2) Proviso (B), and, therefore, cannot
be legally sustained.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J.)

1. Petitioner who is employed as
Sub Inspector in U.P. Police was placed
under suspension by an order dated
18.2.2006 on the basis of an episode
telecast by Star News Channel on
17.2.2006. A preliminary enquiry was
directed into the facts as noticed in the
episode. The officer conducting the
preliminary enquiry submitting a report to
the effect that the petitioner was guilty of
demanding
illegal
gratification
for
ensuring that persons mentioned in the
report are not harassed by the police. On
the basis of the report so submitted which
according to the petitioner is wholly ex
parte, the Inspector General of Police,
Meerut Range, Meerut by means of the
order dated 21.2.2006 has decided to
dismiss
the
petitioner
from
service
without holding departmental proceedings
in exercise of powers under Rule 8 (2)
Proviso (B) of the 1991 Rules. This order
of Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Meerut
Range,
Meerut
is
under
challenged in the present writ petition.

2. Counsel for the petitioner Shri
U.N.Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by
Shri Shishir Tandon submits that the
impugned order does not record any
reasons as to why it was not reasonably
practicable to hold such enquiry. In
absence of reasons having been recorded
in writing as required under Rule 8 (2)
Proviso (B), the order impugned cannot
be legally sustained.

3. Standing Counsel on the other
hand submits that since the news channel
had telecast the episode depicting the
involvement of the petitioner in a
misconduct live, it was appropriate that
such police offices who damage the image
of the police department at large should
not be permitted to continue in service
and, therefore, he suggests that no
interference be made in the impugned
order. Standing Counsel further submits
that petitioner has efficacious alternative
remedy by way of Appeal under Rule 20
of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate
Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules,
1991. The writ petition be, therefore,
dismissed.

4. I have heard counsel for the
parties and gone through the records of
the case. Since the facts involved in the
present writ petition are not in dispute, it
would be worthwhile to reproduce Rule 8
(2) Proviso (B) of U.P. Police Officers of
Subordinate
Ranks
(Punishment
and
Appeal) Rules, 1991 as is applicable :

"8. Dismissal and removal - (1)-----------.
(2) No police officer shall be dismissed,
removed or reduced in rank except after
proper
inquiry
and
disciplinary
proceedings as contemplated by these
rules :
Provided that this rule shall not apply -
(a) -----------------------.
(b) Where the authority empowered to
dismiss or remove a person or to reduce
him in rank is satisfied that for some
reason to be recorded by that authority
in
writing,
it
is
not
reasonably
practicable to hold such enquiry; or
(c) ----------------------."

5. From the aforesaid Rule it is
established that normal rule to be adopted
against a police officer to be subjected to
major
penalty
is
after
holding
a
departmental enquiry as contemplated
2 All] Dhajja Ram V. VIth A.D.J., Muzaffar Narar and others
839
under the Rules i.e. U.P. Police Officers
of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and
Appeal) Rules, 1991. Dispensation of the
departmental enquiry is an exception and,
therefore, the Section 8 (2) Proviso B
itself mandates that reasons for such
dispense must be recorded in writing.

6. From the impugned order it is
apparent that the mandate of Rule 8 (2)
Proviso (B) has not been carried out and
absolutely no reasons for dispensation
with the departmental enquiry before
dismissing the petitioner from service
have been recorded in writing as to why it
was not reasonably practicable to hold
such an enquiry In such circumstances the
order not being supported by sufficient
reasons recorded for dispensing with the
enquiry is hit by Rule 8 (2) Proviso (B),
and,
therefore,
cannot
be
legally
sustained.

7. It is settled law that availability of
statutory remedy is not an absolute bar for
entertainment of writ petitions.

8. In the facts and circumstances of
the case this Court is satisfied that it
would be more appropriate to exercise
discretion under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India instead of refusing
to do so on the ground of availability of
alternative
remedy.
Accordingly
the
objection raised by the Standing Counsel
is hereby turned out.

9. For the reasons recorded
hereinabove the impugned order dated
21.2.2006 is hereby quashed. However
since the petitioner was under suspension
prior to passing of the impugned order it
is provided that such suspension shall
continue till the respondents take a fresh
decision in the matter in accordance with
law. If a decision is taken to hold a
departmental
enquiry
against
the
petitioner in respect of charges, such
departmental
proceedings
must
be
completed within three months from the
date a certified copy of this order is filed
before
respondent
no.
2.
In
case
respondent no. 2 feels that departmental
proceedings
in
the
facts
and
circumstances
of
the
case
is
not
practicable, he shall record reasons for the
same in writing.

Petition Allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.10.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.U. KHAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.18022 of 1986

Dhajja Ram

...Petitioner
Versus
VI th A.D.J., Muzaffar Nagar and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Tarun Verma

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri M.K. Rajvanshi
S.C.

(A) U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation
letting of Rent & Eviction) Act 1972-S-20
(4)-Benefits claimed by the tenantdeposit made on 28.8.84, on the same
day written statement filed after taking
permission of the Trial Court-once with
the
permission
of
court
written
statement filed-No date prior to that can
be first date of hearing-held benefittenant
not
liable
to
entitled
for
ejectment.

Held: Para 5