Dismissed

Chandi Prasad v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC4 Jul 2024SPLA/580/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A police constable who rejoined duty after nearly 364 days' unauthorised absence was dismissed after disciplinary proceedings. His appeal and revision failed. The Single Judge upheld the dismissal citing precedent on habitual absenteeism as gross discipline violation. The Division Bench declined to interfere and dismissed the intra-court appeal.

What the court decided

AI extract

Chandi Prasad vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:108748-DB

¶2

Court No. - 29

¶3

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 580 of 2024 Appellant :- Chandi Prasad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ramesh Chandra Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ramesh Chandra Upadhyay, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present intra court appeal has been preferred questioning the validity of judgement and order dated 23.04.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-A No.10253 of 2018. A further prayer has also been made to reinstate the appellant in service with all service and retiral benefits.

¶7

The case of the appellant is that while working as Constable, he was transferred from Police Line Maharajganj to Police Station Parsamalik, District Maharajganj and he was relieved to join the transferred place on 05.08.2010 but since then he was missing. Subsequently, he reported for joining at the transferred place on 02.08.2011 with delay of almost 364 days. Consequently, disciplinary proceedings under Rule 14 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Police Subordinate Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 was initiated and after full fledged inquiry his services were dispensed with vide order dated 31.12.2013.

¶8

Aggrieved by order of dismissal dated 31.12.2013, the appellant filed an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur, which was dismissed vide order dated 25.09.2016, against which the appellant filed a revision before the Inspector General of Police, which too was dismissed vide order dated 15.04.2017.

¶9

All the three orders dated 31.12.2013, 25.09.2016 and 15.04.2017 were assailed before learned Single Judge, who had dismissed the writ petition considering the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in Maan Singh vs. Union of India (2003) 3 SCC 464 and Union of India vs. Bishamber Das Dogra (2009) 13 SCC 102 (paragraph 31) wherein it has been held that 'Habitual absenteeism means gross violation of discipline'.

¶10

Considering the aforesaid admitted situation and the fact that the petitioner was a member of disciplined force, who acted in the manner, which was not expected from member of the disciplined force, we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned judgement and order passed by learned Single Judge.

¶11

The instant intra court appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶12

Order Date :- 4.7.2024 S.P.

¶13

Digitally signed by :- SANJAY PURI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Chandi Prasad v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Chandi Prasad v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Lb Electronics Ltd. vs State of Up and 2 Others

Dayaram and Another vs State of Up and 3 Others

M/S Gautam Udyog vs State of Up and 2 Others

Parvin Khan vs State of Up and 3 Others

Committee of Management Sri Surya Narayan Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya vs Avneesh Kumar Rai and 2 Others

Tarun Bhatnagar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others