Allowed

Jai Pal Singh 120 Arm Police v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC1 Aug 2018WRIA/4432/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the Court quashed orders imposing an adverse entry and transferring a police constable back to his parent department after holding that they were passed without an opportunity of hearing, violating natural justice. The Court mandated expunging the entry while reserving the right to investigate later.

What did the court decide?

Orders dated 02.07.2007, 07.07.2007, 28.04.2008, and 19.07.2008 quashed; respondents commanded to expunge the adverse entry from service records.

Jai Pal Singh 120 Arm Police Vs State of U.P. and… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 28

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4432 of 2009 Petitioner :- Jai Pal Singh (120 Arm Police) Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ved Mani Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶3

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Ved Mani Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶5

Petitioner is a Constable in the Armed Police Wing of the U.P. Police. He was transferred from the Armed Police to Traffic Police in the year 1997. An adverse entry was awarded to the petitioner by order dated 02.07.2007 and also reverts to the parent department of Armed Police. Consequential orders were passed on 07.07.2007. Aggrieved by the order passed by the disciplinary authority the petitioner took the same in appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority rejected the appeal by order dated 28.04.2008. The petitioner took the order passed by the appellate authority in revision. The revision too was dismissed by the competent authority by order dated 19.07.2008.

¶6

Petitioner being aggrieved by the order directing to record an adverse entry and transferring him to his parent department by the order dated 02.07.2007 and the consequential order dated 07.07.2007. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the orders passed by the appellate authority dated 28.04.2008 as well as the revisional authority dated 19.07.2008. The petitioner assailed the aforesaid orders in this writ petition.

¶7

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order passed by the disciplinary authority dated 02.07.2007 records an adverse entry in his character roll and also transfers him back to the parent department after delisting him from the Traffic Police. The order is stigmatic in nature and has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He further submits that the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority failed to consider the grounds raised in the appeal as well in the memo of revision and also did not redeem injustice caused by the order dated 02.07.2007.

¶8

Learned Standing Counsel has refuted the case of the petitioner. He submits that grave acts of indiscipline were committed by the petitioner which are borne from perusal of the order passed by the disciplinary authority. Such persons cannot be permitted to go unpunished in discipline forces like U.P. Police.

¶9

The order dated 02.07.2007 passed by the Additional Director General of Police/Director, Traffic U.P. Lucknow records that the petitioner was misbehaving with the drivers of vehicles and several complaints were received in that regard. The Superintendent of Police, Rampur also submitted a report confirming such conduct on the part of the petitioner. On the basis of the aforesaid report and said material, the Additional Director General of Police/Director, Traffic U.P. Lucknow directed that the petitioner be delisted from the Traffic Police for all times. It was also directed that Superintendent of Police, Rampur should record the said adverse report on the conduct of the petitioner in his service records/character roll.

¶10

The disciplinary authority of the petitioner is the Superintendent of Police, Rampur. The order will visit the petitioner with long term adverse consequences. The order is penal in nature. The petitioner has specifically stated in the writ petition that the order dated 02.07.2007 has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner. Neither was he associated with any enquiry which formed basis of the action against the petitioner. The same was categorically asserted by learned counsel for the petitioner in the course of his argument. The averments relating to violation of principles of natural justice made in the writ petition has not been traversed or denied in the counter affidavit.

¶11

Learned Standing Counsel could not point out anything from the record to demonstrate that prior to recording the aforesaid order dated 02.07.2007 any opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner.

¶12

The order dated 02.02.2007 has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. The order dated 02.07.2007 is arbitrary and illegal.

¶13

The appellate authority as well as the revisional authority have failed to record independent findings on the issue of violation of principles of natural justice.

¶14

The stand of the petitioner has been consistent. The material against him, is false and unreliable. Had he been given opportunity he would have in a position to refute the material against him. The prejudice caused to the

¶15

petitioner for violation of principles of natural justice is beyond recall.

¶16

The orders passed appellate authority as well as the revisional authority are arbitrary and illegal and have failed to redeem the injustice caused to the petitioner. The said orders are arbitrary and illegal.

¶17

The orders dated 02.07.2007 passed by respondent no. 3, 07.07.2007 passed by respondent no. 2, order dated 28.04.2008 passed by the appellate authority and order dated 19.07.2008 passed by the revisional authority are quashed.

¶18

The respondents are commanded to expunge the entry in the record of service of the petitioner. It is open for the respondent authorities to investigate the matter in accordance with law and take appropriate action after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶19

The writ petition is allowed.

¶20

Order Date :- 1.8.2018 Pravin

Jai Pal Singh 120 Arm Police v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Pal Singh 120 Arm Police 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of U.P. Vs Shonath and Others

Smt. Lavangi Devi Vs State of U.P. and Others

Smt. Manjusha Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others

Naresh Chandra Gupta and Another Vs G.M.Tech. Establishment U.P.S.R.T.C. and Others

Vinod Kumar and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secry. Rural Development and Ors.

Smt. Shakuntla Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Others