Allowed

Vivek Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC11 Jul 2018WRIA/9484/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition quashing a termination order passed against a Sub-Inspector for mining violations. The order was based on Rule 8(2)(b) of the Rules of 1991 without holding an enquiry. The Court held that dispensing with enquiry is arbitrary and contrary to the Supreme Court's precedent, quashing the termination and permitting suspension pending departmental proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The termination order dated 28.02.2018 exercised under Rule 8(2)(b) of the Rules of 1991 is quashed. The authorities are directed to proceed departmentally, with permission to place the petitioner und

Vivek Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 58

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9484 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Vivek Pratap Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Gautam,Mohammad Fahad

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶7

Petitioner is a Sub-Inspector in U.P. Police, who is aggrieved by the termination order passed against him dated 28.02.2018 by the D.I.G.,Chitrakoot Dham Region, Banda. The order records that petitioner was found extracting illegal amount from truck owners for unauthorizedly allowing minor minerals, including sand, etc., to be transported from his area. The order has been passed without holding any enquiry, exercising jurisdiction under rule 8(2)(b) of the U.P. Police Officers Subordinate Ranks (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1991. It is also recorded that holding of disciplinary proceeding is not practicable.

¶8

It is contended stated that exercise of power under Rule 8(2)(b) of the Rules of 1991, in the facts and circumstances, is absolutely arbitrary and is in the teeth of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Union Of India and Another vs Tulsiram Patel and Others reported in (1985) 3 SCC 398. It is submitted that there is no basis to hold that disciplinary enquiry cannot be conducted against the petitioner.

¶9

While entertaining the writ petition, time was granted to learned Standing Counsel to obtain instructions. It is stated, on the basis of instructions, that the petitioner has acted in a manner inconsistent with what is expected from a police personnel, and therefore, the impugned action has been taken, as per law.

¶10

The ground urged by the respondents to dispense with enquiry under Rule 8(2)(b) of the Rules of 1991 is in the teeth of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Union Of India And Another vs Tulsiram Patel And Others , 1985 (3) SCC 398. Apart from observing that holding of disciplinary proceedings are not practical, nothing is brought on record to substantiate such assertion. There is no valid reason disclosed in the order also for not holding a departmental enquiry in the matter.

¶11

This aspect has also been considered by this court in catena of decisions where it has been held that the disciplinary authorities are completely ignoring and fail to

¶12

consider the matter in correct perspective and are regularly passing orders which are not in conformity with the requirement of law where an action could not have been taken against an employee without holding any department enquiry. (See Raja Ram Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others , 2009(6) ADJ 657; Jahir Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others , 2009(6) ADJ 605; Subhas Chandra Yadav Vs. State of U.P., 2009 All L.J. (3) 414; Satya Prakash Vs. State of U.P. and others (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28875 of 2006), decided on 07.11.2008; Ram Sanehi Misra Vs. State of U.P. and others (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 61271 of 2006), decided on 05.10.2009; and, Ravi Dutt Tyagi Vs. State of U.P. and others (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 56979 of 2006), decided on 17.02.2009.)

¶13

For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 28.02.2018, exercising the power under Rule 8(2)(b) of the Rules of 1991, cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. It shall be open for the authorities to proceed departmentally against the petitioner. For such purposes, it would be open for the respondents to place the petitioner under suspension.

¶14

Order Date :- 11.7.2018 Amit Mishra

Vivek Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vivek Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Dhani Ram Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ajay Singh Tomer Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ram Kishor Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Parvati Vs State of Up and 3 Others

Shyam Deo Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Reeta Rathaur Vs Union of India and Another