Allowed

Ram Sewak Verma v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC4 Dec 2019WRIA/60648/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a writ petition challenging a dismissal from police service. The respondent relied on Rule 8(2)(b) of U.P. Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991, dispensing with enquiry due to alleged non-cooperation. The court held that the dismissal was illegal as the requisite material reasons were not recorded and the enquiry report was not supplied to the pe

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 10.09.2007 is set aside. The writ petition is allowed granting liberty to respondents to hold regular enquiry.

Ram Sewak Verma Vs State of U.P. and Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 3

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 60648 of 2007

¶4

Petitioner :- Ram Sewak Verma Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Udayan Nandan,Shashi Nandan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.

¶6

1. Heard Smt. Preeti, Advocate holding brief of Sri Udayan Nandan, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos.1 & 2.

¶7

2. The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has challenged the order 10.10.2007 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Agra Region, Agra, dismissing the petitioner from service.

¶8

3. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner was initially appointed as Sub-Inspector in the year 1997. The petitioner was placed in Police Line on 08.09.2007. Subsequently, he was suspended by order dated 09.09.2007 and a disciplinary enquiry was instituted against him.

¶9

4 . It appears that Superintendent of Police conducted an enquiry and submitted report which states that petitioner did not complete the investigation of ten criminal cases; the named accused in the criminal cases have not been identified nor they have been arrested; the petitioner had neither filed charge sheet nor final report in several cases after investigation. Thus, petitioner has committed grave irregularity in conducting the investigation. The said report also records that petitioner used his illness as ploy to conspire against the Superintendent of Police and was creating a situation of revolt.

¶10

5 . On the basis of the aforesaid report, respondent no.2, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Agra, passed an order dated 10.09.2007 exercising power under Rule 8(2) (b) of U.P. Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 1991') dismissing the petitioner from service by recording a finding that as the petitioner is not cooperating with the enquiry, therefore, it is not reasonably practicable to hold enquiry.

¶11

¶12

6 . Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is procedure provided in the Rules, 1991 to conduct disciplinary enquiry against an employee and proviso (b) of Rule 8(2) of Rules 1991 can be invoked in a very rare and exceptional circumstances that too after recording reasons on the basis of the material on record that it is not reasonably practicable to hold the enquiry. He submits that in the present case, no such condition exists and further no reason has been assigned by the Disciplinary Authority while holding that it is not reasonably practicable to hold enquiry in the instant case. Thus, the submission is that the impugned order is not sustainable as the service of the petitioner has not been dispensed with as per the procedure provided in Rule 8(2) of the Rules, 1991. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgement of this Court in the case of State of U.P. and Others Vs. Chandrika Prasad 2006(1) ESC 374 (All)(DB).

¶13

7 . He further submits that the report of Superintendent of Police on which reliance has been placed by the Disciplinary Authority before passing the impugned order has not been supplied to the petitioner and, therefore, the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice.

¶14

8 . Refuting the aforesaid submissions, learned Standing Counsel would contend that conduct of the petitioner was such so as to warrant punishment of dismissal inasmuch as petitioner was guilty of misconduct as he failed to complete the investigation in criminal cases and further, petitioner has neither got identified named accused in the criminal cases nor arrested them. He further submits that petitioner has neither filed charge sheet nor final report and committed serious irregularities in conducting the investigation and thus, in view of the aforesaid fact, the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dismissing the petitioner from service is just and proper and does not warrant interference by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of Constitution of India.

¶15

9 . He further submits that disciplinary authority rerecorded cogent reasons in dispensing with the enquiry that petitioner was not cooperating in the inquiry, therefore, in such circumstances it was not reasonably

¶16

¶17

practicable to hold enquiry. Thus, in the facts of the present case, the Disciplinary Authority was right and justified in dispensing with the enquiry.

¶18

10 . I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.

¶19

11 . In the case in hand, the issue which arise for consideration is as to whether the Disciplinary Authority was justified in dispensing with enquiry by invoking power under proviso (b) of Rule 8(2) of Rules 1991 .

¶20

12. At this stage, it would be apt to refer Rule 8 of Rules 1991 which is extracted hereinbelow:-

¶21

"8. Dismissal and removal — (1)No Police Officer shall be dismissed or removed from service by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority.

¶22

(2) No police officer shall be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank except after proper inquiry and disciplinary proceedings as contemplated by these rules :

¶23

Provided that this rule shall not apply—

¶24

(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

¶25

(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 inwriting, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such enquiry : or

¶26

(c) Where the Government is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to hold such enquiry.

¶27

(3) All orders of dismissal and removal of Head Constables or Constables shall be passed by the Superintendent of Police. Cases in which the Superintendent of Police recommends dismissal or removal of a Sub-Tnsnector or an Inspector. shall be forwarded to. the Deputy InspectorGeneral concerned for orders.

¶28

(4) (a) The punishment for intentionally or negligently allowing a person in Police custody or judicial custody to escape shall be dismissal unless the punishing authority for reasons to be recorded in writing awards a lesser -punishment.

¶29

(b) Every officer convicted by the court for an offence involving moral turpitude shall be dismissed unless the punishing authority for reasons to he recorded in writing considers it otherwise."

¶30

13 . The aforesaid Rule 8 contemplates procedure for dismissal and the removal of police official. As per Rule 8(2), the police officer can be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank after proper enquiry and

¶31

¶32

disciplinary proceedings as contemplated under the rules. However, there is proviso (b) appended to Rule 8 (2) of Rules, 1991 which provides that the Disciplinary Authority can dispense with the enquiry if he is satisfied for the reasons to be recorded in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to hold such enquiry.

¶33

14 . At this juncture, it would be apt to refer the judgement of this Court in the case of Chandrika Prasad (supra) wherein this court explained the word "reasons to be recorded in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to hold enquiry". Paragraph 13,14 and 15 of the case of Chandrika Prasad (supra) are extracted hereinbelow:-

¶34

"13. Considering the case in hand in the light of the legal principle laid down in the above cases we find that the order of dismissal nowhere shows that the authority has recorded its satisfaction that holding of a disciplinary enquiry is not reasonably practicable. No record has been produced by the appellant to show that such findings were recorded by the disciplinary authority. Therefore, the impugned order is in violation of the provisions of the aforesaid Rules.

¶35

14. The learned counsel for the appellant attempted to justify the order that it satisfies the requirements of Rules. We are of the view that even this contention is apparently misconceived. The Apex Court at page 1479 in Tulsi Ram Patel (supra) held as follows:-

¶36

"A disciplinary authority is not expected to dispense with a disciplinary authority lightly or arbitrary or out of ulterior motives or merely in order to avoid the holding of an inquiry or because the Department's case against the Government servant is weak and must fail."

¶37

15. The words some "reasons to be recorded in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to hold enquiry" means that there must be some material for satisfaction of the disciplinary authority that it is not reasonably practicable. The decision to dispense with the departmental enquiry cannot, therefore, be rested solely on the ipse dixit of the concerned authority. The Apex Court in the case Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab and others, AIR 1991 SC 385 in para 5 at page 390 has observed as under:-

¶38

"It was incumbent on the respondents to disclose to the Court the material in existence at the date of the passing of the impugned in support of the subjective satisfaction recorded by respondent No.3 in the impugned order. Clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) can be invoked only when the authority is satisfied from the material placed before him that it is not reasonably practicable to hold a departmental enquiry.

¶39

"...When the satisfaction of the concerned authority is questioned in a court of law, it is incumbent on those who support the order to show that the satisfaction is based on certain objective facts and is not the outcome of the whim or caprice of the concerned officer".

¶40

¶41

15. In the case in hand, it evident from the record that no inquiry as contemplated under Rule 8(2) was conducted against the petitioner. The only reason assigned by the disciplinary authority in dispensing with the enquiry against the petitioner was that the petitioner was not cooperating in the enquiry. The aforesaid reason cannot be said be sufficient reason to dispense with the enquiry against the petitioner for the reason that the satisfaction of the disciplinary authority to dispense with the enquiry is not supported by any materiel on record. Further, there was no material on record to indicate that the petitioner had avoided the charge sheet or he in any manner could have influenced the witnesses to be presented during the enquiry proceedings.

¶42

16 . It transpires from the record that the inquiry report upon which reliance has been placed by the Disciplinary Authority was not supplied to the petitioner which fact has been stated by the petitioner in paragraph 13 of the writ petition which is extracted hereinbelow:-

¶43

"That a perusal of the impugned order indicates that the same has been passed on the basis of a report dated 09.09.2007 of the Superintendent of Police, copy of which has not been supplied to the petitioner and in view of which the aforesaid order is violative to the principles of natural justice inasmuch as it is incumbent upon the aforesaid authority to have supplied a copy thereof to the petitioner."

¶44

17 . The reply of the aforesaid paragraph has been given by the respondents in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit which is also extracted hereinbelow:-

¶45

"यह किकि कयाचिचिकिाच क े कप्रस्तर क१२, क१३ कव क१४ कमे कविणरत क थन किजिस कप्रकिाचर अंकिकित किकियाच कगयाच कहै कस्वीकिाचर कनहीं कहै. कइस कसम्बन्ध कमे कपूर्वर कप्रस्तरों कमे कितिस्थित क ो िवस्तृत करूप कसे कस्पष्ट किकियाच कजिाच कचिुकिाच कहै कतथाच कपाचिरत कआदेश ककिी किविशष्टताच, मुखरिरताच क ो कदोहराचयाच कजिाचताच कहै.”

¶46

18 . The reply of paragraph 13 of the writ petition clearly reflects that specific averment made in paragraph 13 of the writ petition has not been denied by the respondents. Thus, the impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice for not supplying the enquiry report to the petitioner which was the basis for passing the order of dismissal.

¶47

¶48

19 . Thus, for the reasons given above, the impugned order dated 10.09.2007 passed by the respondent no.2, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Agra, Region, Agra, is set aside. The writ petition is allowed granting liberty to respondents, if they so desire, to hold regular enquiry against the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶49

Order Date :- 4.12.2019 Sattyarth/S.Sharma

Ram Sewak Verma v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Sewak Verma 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kailash Vs Cantonment Board Jhansi Cantt. and Others

Som Kant Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others

Smt. Sumeria Vs State of U.P. and Others

Subodh Kauser Vs Chairman All India Council for Tech. Edu. and Others

C/M. Bhartiya Vidya Mandir Inter College Mainpuri and Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Others

Sikandar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others