# Surendra Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2007) 1 ILRA 37
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006-10-06
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.1853 of 2006
- **Bench:** V.C. Misra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/surendra-pal-singh-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-40877
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules
1991-Rule 8 (2)-dismissal from servicepetitioner alone found guilty for non
reporting election duty habitual of
misbehaving with other police man and
public in drunken state-while dispense
with departmental enquiry-No reason
recorded
dismissal
order-held
highly
unjustified-not
commensurate
with
alleged charges-order quashed.

Held: 8 & 12

In view of clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of
the Rule 8 of the Rules clearly shows
that the authority is empowered to
dismiss or remove a person without
initiating proper enquiry and disciplinary
proceedings, as contemplated by the
Rules provided he is satisfied that for
some
reason
it
is
not
reasonably
practicable to hold such enquiry but the
reasons have to be recorded in writing
by the authority concerned. In the
present case, there is not even a whisper
of any reason or ground as to why it was
not reasonably practicable to hold such
enquiry.

Thus I am of the view that disciplinary
authority while exercising its special
power to dispense with departmental
enquiry proceeding at the time of
dismissing the service of the petitioner
has failed to strictly comply with the
provisions as provided under Rule 8 (2) b
of the Rules and failed to record the
reasonable
ground,
which
is
highly
unjustified and the impugned order
dated 17.8.2005 (Annexure No.5 to the
writ petition) passed by respondent no.5
is liable to be struck down, consequently
the impugned order dated 9th October,
2005 passed by the respondent no.4 and
the order dated 12th December, 2005
passed
by
the
respondent
no.3
(Annexures No. 7 and 9 to the writ
petition respectively) are also liable to
be quashed.
Case law discussed:
2005 (1) ESC (HC)-505
1990 (20) SLR-488 (P of H)
1998 (1) UPLBEC-638
1994 (3) UPLBEC-638

## Text

1 All] Surendra Pal Singh V. State of U.P. and others
37
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.10.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE V.C. MISRA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.1853 of 2006

Surendra Pal Singh

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri A.N. Rai

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri C.B. Yadav
Sri G.P. Yadav
S.C.

U.P. Plice Officers of the Sub-ordinate
Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules
1991-Rule 8 (2)-dismissal from servicepetitioner alone found guilty for non
reporting election duty habitual of
misbehaving with other police man and
public in drunken state-while dispense
with departmental enquiry-No reason
recorded
dismissal
order-held
highly
unjustified-not
commensurate
with
alleged charges-order quashed.

Held: 8 & 12

In view of clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of
the Rule 8 of the Rules clearly shows
that the authority is empowered to
dismiss or remove a person without
initiating proper enquiry and disciplinary
proceedings, as contemplated by the
Rules provided he is satisfied that for
some
reason
it
is
not
reasonably
practicable to hold such enquiry but the
reasons have to be recorded in writing
by the authority concerned. In the
present case, there is not even a whisper
of any reason or ground as to why it was
not reasonably practicable to hold such
enquiry.

Thus I am of the view that disciplinary
authority while exercising its special
power to dispense with departmental
enquiry proceeding at the time of
dismissing the service of the petitioner
has failed to strictly comply with the
provisions as provided under Rule 8 (2) b
of the Rules and failed to record the
reasonable
ground,
which
is
highly
unjustified and the impugned order
dated 17.8.2005 (Annexure No.5 to the
writ petition) passed by respondent no.5
is liable to be struck down, consequently
the impugned order dated 9th October,
2005 passed by the respondent no.4 and
the order dated 12th December, 2005
passed
by
the
respondent
no.3
(Annexures No. 7 and 9 to the writ
petition respectively) are also liable to
be quashed.
Case law discussed:
2005 (1) ESC (HC)-505
1990 (20) SLR-488 (P of H)
1998 (1) UPLBEC-638
1994 (3) UPLBEC-638

(Delivered by Hon'ble V.C. Misra, J.)

1. Sri R.N. Rai, learned counsel for
the
petitioner
and
learned
standing
counsel on behalf of the respondents are
present. Counter and rejoinder affidavits
have been exchanged. On the joint request
of learned counsel for the parties, this writ
petition is being decided finally at the
admission stage in terms of the Rules of
the Court.

2. This writ petition has been filed
by the petitioner for quashing orders dated
17th August, 2005, passed by respondent
no.5, 9th October, 2005 passed by
respondent no.4 and 12th December, 2005
passed by respondent no.3 (Annexures
No. 5, 7 and 9 to the writ petition
respectively) and further for a direction to
the respondents to allow the petitioner to
work on the post of Constable in Civil
38 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
Police and pay him salary month to month
in accordance with law.

3. The facts of the case of the
petitioner in brief are that he was posted
as constable in Civil Police of Uttar
Pradesh and during the course of service
he was posted as constable 94 C.P. at
police station Khekhara District Baghpat
and
before
passing
the
impugned
termination order he was working at
Police Chauki Bazar, Khekhara, Baghpat.
On 15.8.2005, the petitioner was relieved
by the Station Officer to proceed to
village Sunhaira vide G.D.No.15 at 22.30
hours for the purpose of getting arm's
license deposited due to the Panchayat
Election of 2005. While he was away
from duty, Sub-Inspector Jai Dev Malik
made an inspection of the police Chauki
Bazar
Khekhara
and
made
an
endorsement in the G.D. No.38 at 23.30
hours to the effect that he was not present
at the Police Station and submitted his
report.
The
petitioner
after
having
knowledge of the aforesaid complaint
reported at the Police Station Khekhara
and made an entry to that effect in G.D.
No. 40 at 23.45 hours on 15.8.2005. It is
alleged in the writ petition that the said
Sub Inspector without making necessary
enquiry about rawangi of the petitioner to
village Sunhaira vide G.D. No. 15 at
22.30 hour reported the matter to the
Superintendent of Police, Baghpat on
16.8.2005 (Annexure No.4 to the writ
petition) that the petitioner was habitual
of drinking alcohol and misbehaved in
drunken state with the public and other
employees of the department in the night
of 15.8.2005. A search of the petitioner
was made, on the instructions of the
Superintendent of Police and it was found
that he alone was found absent from duty
whereas other remaining employees had
gone on election duty and such act
committed by the petitioner amounted to
serious negligence and utmost dereliction
of duty. In the report a request was made
that the petitioner may be transferred to
some other distant place. On the said
report an endorsement was made by the
Superintendent of Police on 16.8.2005 to
the effect which reads as under:

"H.C./ put up to termination order
under 8 (2) b."

4. The Superintendent of Police,
Baghpat exercising its power under Rule
8 (2) b of the Uttar Pradesh Police
Officers of the Sub Ordinate Ranks
(Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991
(hereinafter referred to as the Rules) vide
order dated 17.8.2005 terminated the
services of the petitioner with immediate
effect on the ground of misbehavior and
uncivilized action with the public and
other employees of the department due to
which the image of the Police department
was tarnished and such misbehavior and
dereliction of duty naturally had a bad
affect on the other Police Officials,
therefore, he was satisfied that the
petitioner was fully unfit to continue on
his post in the disciplined Police Force.

5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid
impugned order dated 17.8.2005 the
petitioner filed an appeal before the
Deputy Inspector General of Police-
respondent no.4 under Rule 23 of the
Rules against the order dated 17.8.2005
(Annexure No.5 to the writ petition) on
the ground that neither any opportunity of
hearing was afforded to him nor any
disciplinary proceedings in accordance
with law was drawn against the petitioner
at all before passing the impugned
termination/dismissal
order
dated
1 All] Surendra Pal Singh V. State of U.P. and others
39
17.8.2005 (Annexure No.5 to the writ
petition).

6. The said appeal was dismissed by
the respondent no.4. Feeling aggrieved,
the petitioner filed a revision against the
said order before the Inspector General of
Police,
Meerut
Region,
Meerutrespondent no.3 under Rule 23 of the
Rules which too was rejected vide
impugned
order
dated
12.12.2005
(Annexure No.9 to the writ petition.)

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid
orders the petitioner has filed the present
writ petition.

7. I have heard learned counsel for
the
petitioner
and
learned
standing
counsel at length and perused the record.
Rule 8 (2) b of the Rules relying upon
which the respondent No.5 relied while
dismissing the services of the petitioner
reads as under:

"8. Dismissal and removal - (1) No
Police Officer shall be dismissed or
removed from service by an authority
subordinate to the appointing authority.
(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) Where a person is dismissed or
removed or reduced in rank on the
ground of conduct which has led to
his conviction on a criminal charge;
or
(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) Where the Government is satisfied
that in the interest of the security of
the State it is not expedient to hold
such enquiry."

8. In view of clause (b) of sub-rule
(2) of the Rule 8 of the Rules clearly
shows that the authority is empowered to
dismiss or remove a person without
initiating proper enquiry and disciplinary
proceedings, as contemplated by the
Rules provided he is satisfied that for
some
reason
it
is
not
reasonably
practicable to hold such enquiry but the
reasons have to be recorded in writing by
the authority concerned. In the present
case, there is not even a whisper of any
reason or ground as to why it was not
reasonably practicable to hold such
enquiry.

9.

Learned
standing
counsel
appearing for the State-respondents has
submitted that there was no need for the
authority to endorse such reason for
dispensing with an enquiry as the
allegations which was made against the
petitioner
itself
was
sufficient
for
terminating the services of such police
personal. In this respect he has relied
upon a judgment of this Court rendered in
Niranjan Singh and another Vs. State of
U.P. and others, (2005) (1) E.S.C. (All.)
505) which in my view is not applicable
to the facts and circumstances of the
present case.

10. From perusal of the record I find
that the impugned order dated 17.8.2005
(Annexure No.5 to the writ petition) was
passed by the Superintendent of Police,
Baghpat respondent no.5 against the
petitioner on the allegations which are
40 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
general in nature and particularly on the
basis of allegations made in the report
dated 15.8.2005 (Annexure No.3 to the
writ petition). In the said report no
specific name of a person from the public
has been mentioned nor any complaint
has been referred to have been received
from them. More so, as per the report of
the Sub Inspector of the concerned Police
Station dated 16.8.2005, there was no
other police employee present at the
Police Station, as all of them had gone out
on the election duty, whereas in the
impugned order, the allegation made
against
the
petitioner
is
that
he
misbehaved with the other police officials
in drunken state. From perusal of the
record, I also found that the penalty
imposed against the petitioner removing
him from service does not commensurate
with the alleged charges and could not be
reasonably imposed as in the like
circumstances, in the case of Ram Kishan
Vs. State of Haryana, (1990 (20) S.L.R.
488 (P & H) Panjab & Haryana, High
Court held as under:

"Punishment of dismissal on a police
constable on guard duty on charges of
consuming liquor and chasing colleague
constable on sentry duty with intention to
bodily harm him and abusing the head
constable, in charge guard was held
disproportionate and case remanded to
disciplinary authority to reconsider the
quantum of penalty. In the case of
Dharma Pal Vs. State of Haryana 1989
(5) SLR 569 (P&H), it has been held that
the dismissal from service of the constable
for having consumed liquor on duty is
wholly arbitrary and hence liable to be
quashed"

11. Further, it is not clear from the
impugned orders passed in the instant
case against the petitioner that the
petitioner was provided any opportunity
of hearing before terminating him from
service.
In
such
circumstances, the
petitioner was also deprived of the basic
principle of natural justice by not
affording
reasonable
opportunity
of
hearing for defending himself. This Court
has on two occasions earlier dealt with
Rule 8(2) b of the Rules. In Brijendra
Singh Yadav Vs. State of UP (1998 (1)
UPLBEC 638) and in Deep Narain Vs.
Deputy Inspector General of Police (1994
(3) UPLBEC 1717). In Brijendra Singh
Yadav (Supra), this Court held as under:

"it is well settled that the satisfaction
of the authority concerned for dispensing
the enquiry on the ground that it was not
reasonable
practicable
to
hold
the
enquiry, is open to judicial review. Before
an order dispensing an enquiry can be
sustained,
two
conditions
must
be
satisfied (1) that there existed a situation
which rendered holding of any enquiry
not reasonably practicable an (2) that the
disciplinary authority had recorded in
writing
its
reasons
in
support
its
conclusion. In addition to that it must also
be shown that the authority concerned has
not
exercised
the
statutory
power
maliciously and is not motivated by
personal animosity.

It was further observed:

".........It was incumbent upon the
respondents to disclose to the court the
material which existed at the date of
passing the impugned order in supportof
the subjective satisfaction recorded by the
respondent no.3 in the impugned order
especially when serious allegation of
mala fide were made against him as well
as Sri Ranvir Singh Chauhan. It is well
1 All] Gaon Sabha V. Addl. District Judge and others
41
settled that the decision to dispense with
departmental enquiry can not be rested
solely on the ipse dexit to the concerned
authority..........Non holding a regular
enquiry in the back ground of the
allegations of malafide, was highly
unjustified and the ground record for
subjective satisfaction for non holding of
enquiry that no witness was prepared to
give evidence against the petitioner, was
nothing but a lame excuse and appears to
be a concoction.

In Deep Narain (Supra) it was held
by this Court as under:

"........the disciplinary authority has
power to dispense with the enquiry but
that decision can only be taken in case it
is satisfied that it is not reasonably
practicable to hold such enquiry. The
reasons are to be recorded in writing in
support
of
the
satisfaction.
The
disciplinary authority has no right to
dispense with the departmental enquiry
against the government servant is week
and likely to fail. The discretion which
has been given to the disciplinary
authority
to
dispense
with
the
departmental enquiry can not rest solely
on
the
whims
of
the
concerned
authority............."

12. Thus I am of the view that
disciplinary authority while exercising its
special
power
to
dispense
with
departmental enquiry proceeding at the
time of dismissing the service of the
petitioner has failed to strictly comply
with the provisions as provided under
Rule 8 (2) b of the Rules and failed to
record the reasonable ground, which is
highly unjustified and the impugned order
dated 17.8.2005 (Annexure No.5 to the
writ petition) passed by respondent no.5 is
liable to be struck down, consequently the
impugned order dated 9th October, 2005
passed by the respondent no.4 and the
order dated 12th December, 2005 passed
by the respondent no.3 (Annexures No. 7
and 9 to the writ petition respectively) are
also liable to be quashed.

13. Under above said facts and
circumstances of the case, settled law and
the observations made hereinabove, the
writ petition is allowed and the impugned
orders dated 17.8.2005 (Annexure No.5 to
the writ petition), the appellate order
dated 9th October, 2005 (Annexure No.7
to the writ petition) and the revisional
order
dated
12th
December,
2005
(Annexure No.9 to the writ petition) are
hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be
allowed to continue to work on the post of
Constable in Civil Police and will be paid
salary month to month, in accordance
with
law.
However,
the
concerned
authority would be at liberty to proceed
with the disciplinary proceedings, if so it
thinks proper against the petitioner in
accordance with law.

No order is passed as to costs.
Petition Allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.09.2006

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

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5089 of 1988

Gaon Sabha

...Petitioner
Versus
Additional District Judge and eighteen
others

 ...Respondents