JITENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Hemendra Kumar learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents.

(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed by a Police Constable who was dismissed from service on account of alleged charges of extortion and corruption and the appeal filed against the dismissal order has also been rejected by the appellate authority on 7.7.2006.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the disciplinary proceedings the complainant Sanjeev Dhar appeared and upon a query raised by the Inquiry Officer as to whether the petitioner and the other co-accused were the same policemen who were named by him, the complainant categorically stated that he does not recognise either the petitioner or the other co-accused. The same position existed during the criminal trial and accordingly the petitioner and the other co-accused were acquitted by the trial Court. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the same evidence adduced on the same set of facts was available to the disciplinary authority as such, there was no occassion for the authority to have found the petitioner to be guilty for the charges which have been levelled against him by the Department. LEARNED standing counsel was granted time on 29.3.2007 to file a counter- affidavit. Thereafter time was again granted on 16.7.2010 but till date no counter- affidavit has been filed.