The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of a police constable appointed under the name of his brother via fraud. The Court held non-reinstatement following a review order did not cause prejudice and the dismissal was appropriate.
Writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5247/ 1999 Udai Singh vs. State & Ors.
Date of Order : 17.05.2016
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL
Mr.Deepak Goyal, counsel for petitioner. Dr. A.S. Khangarot, counsel for respondent.
The petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents in dismissing him from service and sought a direction that he be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.
The petitioner was appointed as Regiment Sepoy in the Indian Army on 20.09.1976. He is stated to have taken voluntary retirement from I ndian Army on 25.04.1982. Thereafter he applied for the post of Constable with the Rajasthan Police and was appointed as such on 27.11.1984. While he was serving as Constable, a complaint was received against the petitioner that he had impersonated as his brother and obtained service by deceitful means and he was also illiterate. The petitioner was charge-sheeted vide order dated 24.07.1989. The Superintendent of Police, Kota who was appointed as the enquiry officer submitted his report and dismissed the petitioner from service vide order dated 31.05.1993. The petitioner preferred appeal thereagainst before the Deputy Inspector General of Police which was dismissed on 29.01.1994. Thereafter the petitioner filed review petition before the Governor of Rajasthan on 23.12.1995. The Governor of Rajasthan vide order dated 26.08.1997 partly allowed the review petition and directed
2
the disciplinary authority to issue a show cause notice and supply a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner. The show cause notice along with the enquiry report was served on the petitioner on 25.11.1997 but he did not file any reply thereto. The disciplinary authority vide order dated 27.11.1997 held that there is no infirmity in the earlier order of dismissal and accordingly the petitioner was dismissed from service.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after his review petition had been partly allowed by the Governor of Rajasthan, it was incumbent upon the respondents to have reinstated him in service and as he was not reinstated in service he did not file his reply to the show cause notice. He has further contended that the petitioner was not suspended during the period when the enquiry was conducted and hence after the review petition had been partly allowed he should have been taken back in service.
Per contra, the learned Government Advocate, has submitted that while accepting the review petition no direction had been issued to the respondents by the Governor to reinstate the petitioner in service and hence the petitioner was not reinstated in service. He has further contended that the petitioner was duly issued a copy of the enquiry report and a show cause notice in terms of the direction of the Governor of Rajasthan before the impugned order was passed.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ petition.
3
At the outset, I deem it necessary to reproduce the charges
against the petitioner : -
“ Ch ar ge No.1 : -
That the name of the petitioner in fact is NAND SINGH and he obtained service in the name of his younger brother UDAI SINGH on the basis of educational qualification certificate. It was also stated that at the time of joining service the application submitted by the petitioner, wherein he mentioned that he has passed the Class VII examination from the Government Middle School, Salora-Kalan (Jhalawar) whereas he was adopted by his uncle BHIM SINGH residing at Village Kachera, Police Station Atru where the petitioner went to live but never studied there.
Ch ar ge No.2 : -
That the petitioner in the year 1976 by changing his name from NAND SINGH to UDAI SINGH joined the military services on the basis of educational certificate pertaining to Udai Singh and thereafter obtained discharge certificate from the military and joined the service at Thermal Power Station, Kota on its basis”.
The petitioner submitted his reply and denied all the charges. The Superintendent of Police, Kota was appointed as the enquiry officer. At the request of the petitioner, Shri Vidhya Sagar, HC was appointed as his defence representative. The petitioner submitted in his reply that at the time of his joining service in the Indian Army, he had passed Class III Examination. He had been adopted by his uncle Bhim Singh, and he had undertaken further education while he was in service under the Indian Army. The enquiry officer after hearing the petitioner and recording evidence arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner had never studied in any school and the petitioner had four brothers. The date of birth of both the petitioner and his brother Nand Singh has been registered as 14/ 7/ 1957, but they are not twins. The enquiry officer has also
4
recorded that the defence of the petitioner that he had passed Class III examination at the school in Village Kachara is falsified as there was no school at Village Kachara where the petitioner is stated to have been brought up after adoption by his uncle. The enquiry officer had recorded the statements of several prosecution witnesses namely Shri Mohan Singh, Bhim Singh, Chhotu Singh, Dalap Singh, Udai Singh, Nasim Ullah Khan, Head Master, Govt. Middle School, Sarola and Shri G.C. Gupta, Additional S.P. Kota City and after examining all the relevant documents he found the charges to be proved. He submitted his report to the disciplinary authority on 14/ 2/ 1993. The enquiry officer had also found that in fact as the petitioner had never gone to any school and his name was actually Nand Singh and he had also impersonated as his brother Udai Singh while obtaining appointment in the Indian Army. In pursuance to the order of the Governor show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. However, the petitioner did not file any reply thereto and instead sought reinstatement. The disciplinary authority, after concurring with the enquiry report, dismissed the petitioner from service vide order dated 31/ 5/ 1993. It is, thus, patent that due opportunity had been granted to the petitioner to put forth his defence and the disciplinary authority after following the due procedure had arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner deserves to be dismissed from service.
In so far as the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner should have been reinstated in service after his review petition was partly allowed is concerned, I am of the
5
considered view that in the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, no prejudice whatsoever has been caused to the petitioner by not reinstating him after his review petition had been partly accepted. There was no direction by the Governor to reinstate the petitioner. The only direction was to furnish him copy of the enquiry report and issue him show cause notice which had been promptly done in consonance with the direction of the Governor. The petitioner having obtained employment by impersonating has played fraud on the authorities and the only punishment which would be appropriate in such a case would be dismissal from service. Dismissal from service cannot in any manner be held to be disproportionate to the misconduct of concealment of material facts and playing a fraud upon the employer while obtaining employment.
It is well settled that interference with the orders passed by the disciplinary authority would be called for only in case of arbitrariness, patent illegality or punishment being shockingly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. Reference can be made to the case of Ch air m an & Man agin g Dir ect or , V.S.P.& or s. Vs Gopalr aj u Sr i Pr abh ak ar a Har i Babu r epor t ed as ( 2 0 0 8 ) 5 SCC 5 6 9 , wherein the Supreme Court has held that the jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere in the disciplinary matters is circumscribed by the legal parameters. It cannot set aside a well reasoned order only on sympathy or sentiment. It has also been held that the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under article 226 cannot on the basis of sympathy or sentiment overturn a legal order.
6
In the light of the aforementioned facts and the principles of law, I do not find any manifest illegality in the impugned order dismissing the petitioner from service. In the result, this petition is
dismissed with no order as to costs.
(ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL),J.
Gunjan Kumar Jr. PA
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court interference should be granted in a dismissal from service order where the petitioner obtained service by impersonating his brother.
Whether the failure to reinstate the petitioner after a partly allowed review petition caused any prejudice.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Chairman & Managing Director, V.S.P.& ors Vs Gopalraj u Sri Prabhakara HReferred¶27
( 2 0 0 8 ) 5 SCC 5 6 9
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Udai Singh
State
Anupinder Singh Grewal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
