Allowed

Narendra Singh Tomar v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC7 Dec 2017WRIA/39925/1997

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a disciplinary order passed without following mandatory procedures under the Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks Rules. The court set aside the orders for being ex-parte and procedurally flawed, granting consequential benefits to the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 26.9.1996 and 15.7.1997 set aside; petitioner entitled to all consequential benefits; respondents may proceed from the appropriate stage of enquiry.

Narendra Singh Tomar Vs State of U.P. and Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2017)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 39925 of 1997

¶3

Petitioner :- Narendra Singh Tomar Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arun Tandon,C. Prasad,H.K.Sharma,J.K. Yadav,P.Srivastava,R. Rai,Sunita Sharma,U.K. Saxena,V.K. Saxena,Yogesh Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

¶5

Sri Prashant Mathur, learned Standing Counsel at the outset stated that supplementary counter affidavit has already been filed and in compliance of Court's order dated 10.11.2017, Sri Ram Bodh, Commandant P.A.C. is present.

¶6

Admittedly, no order has been passed by Competent Authority u/s 16(2) of Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 1991'). It is also evident that proceedings were conducted ex-parte and disciplinary authority did not ensure that all appropriate efforts be made for service of charge-sheet upon petitioner.

¶7

The Disciplinary Authority in the impugned order itself has mentioned that proceedings were concluded in the absence of petitioner. The relevant extract from the impugned order reads as under:-

¶8

^^bl izdkj vkjskfir i{k dks ckjEckj lwfpr fd;s tkus ij ihBklhu vf/kdkjh ds le{k mifLFkr ugha gqvk ifj.kke Lo:i m0iz0 Js.kh ds iqfyl vf/kdkfj;ksa dh n.M ,oa vihy fu;ekoyh 1991 ds izLrj 16¼2½ ds fufnZ"V fu;eksa ds vuqlkj dk;Zokgh fuLrkfjr dh xbZ vkjksfir i{k dh vuqifLFkfr dh n'kk esa vfHk;kstu i{k ds leLr lkf{k;ksa ds dFku vafdr fd;s x;sA^^

¶9

“Thus, despite repeatedly being informed, charged employee did not appear before the Presiding Officer (Enquiry Officer) and consequently u/s 16(2) of U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991, proceedings were concluded and charged employee was being absent however, statement of all prosecution witnesses were recorded.”

¶10

( English Translation by Court )

¶11

Moreover, it is also admitted to the respondents-authority that no procedure of Rules, 1991 was followed and therefore, mandatory procedure prescribed in this regard having not been followed, the impugned order is not sustainable.

¶12

Writ petition is allowed and impugned orders dated 26.9.1996 and 15.7.1997 are set aside.

¶13

Petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits.

¶14

However, this order shall not preclude respondents from proceeding against petitioner from appropriate stage of enquiry in accordance with law.

¶15

Order Date :- 7.12.2017 Siddhant Sahu

Narendra Singh Tomar v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narendra Singh Tomar v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anjani Kumar Singh Vs Jt.Director of Education and 4 Ors.

Smt.Santosh Maurya Vs State of U.P. and Others

Vishwanath Prasad and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

Subhash Chandra Vs D.I.O.S. Gorakhpur and Another

Smt.Bina Devi Vs Director of Secondary Education U.P.Alld. and Others

Employees of Nagar Panchayat Vs Principal Secretary Department of Local Self Govt.U.P.and Ors.