SHEO PRAKASH RAI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 22.4.1995 passed by the Superin- tendent of Police, Maharajganj dismissing the petitioner, a constable (armed force), Vigular. Counter-affidavit and rejoinder-affidavit have been exchanged in the writ petition and with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being finally decided.

(2.) The facts of the case as emerge from the pleadings of the parties are, that the petitioner was appointed and posted as constable (armed force) in 36th P.A.C. Battalion at Ram Nagar, Varanasi, on 1.11.1986. After completing three years' of service, option was asked from the armed police constables by U. P. Police Head Quarter for appointment on the post of Vigular which is special wing of U. P. Police Organisation. The petitioner has given his option for appointment as Vigular and after being examined medically, he was appointed as Vigular. The post of Vigular is a post of special allowance and other perks and is under the supervision and control of the Uttar Pradesh Police Head Quarter. It is stated in paragraph 5 of the writ petition that Vigular cannot be asked to perform any other duty unless he is declared medically unfit and to this effect, an approval is accorded by the Uttar Pradesh Police Head Quarter. On 13.7.1991 the petitioner was transferred to district Maharajganj as the Vigular where he performed his duties in the capacity of Vigular. He further staled that in the month of July. 1994, he developed severe chest pain and on 3.8.1994, he submitted a medical certificate showing his inability to perform his duty as Vigular. The authorities realising the grievance of the petitioner referred the matter to the police head quarter to relieve the petitioner from the duty of Vigular. On 6.8.1994 the Circle Officer. Police Lines asked the petitioner to do the santari duty. Petitioner requested that he has no hesitation in performing the santari duty but unless the approval of relieving from Vigular duty comes from the police head quarter, his duty could not be changed. On 12.8.1994, the petitioner was called in "adesh kaksha" for pronouncement of drill punishment which was proposed by the Circle Officer for not doing the santari duty. Petitioner attended the "adesh kaksha" before the Superintendent of Police and when drill punishment was pronounced by the Superintendent of Police, he requested him to hear the petitioner. Petitioner has alleged that after hearing the request of the petitioner, the Superintendent of Police became infuriated and the petitioner was suspended on 12.8.1994. Disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings requested for change of the inquiry officer saying that the Circle Officer himself was the complainant. He further stated that his demand for supply of record was turned down. He has referred Annexure-3 to the writ petition, i.e., letter dated 28.1.1995 by which the Circle Officer has informed him that he cannot be given copies of departmental proceedings. The petitioner was issued a show cause notice as to why he should not be dismissed. The petitioner was dismissed from service by the order dated 22.4.1995. Petitioner states that he was not served the copy of the inquiry report for which he made an application on 5.5.1996. The petitioner has also filed a supplementary-affidavit alleging that he was not given a copy of the inquiry report. He was also not given the copy of charge-sheet or copy of complaint. Statements of witnesses were recorded behind the back of the petitioner. Respondents have filed a counter-affidavit to the writ petition and the supplementary counter-affidavit. Petitioner has also filed a supplementary rejoinder-affidavit. The respondents in their counter-affidavit have stated that against the petitioner, disciplinary inquiry was held and he was given full opportunity. The statements of witnesses were supplied to the petitioner and show cause notice dated 25.10.1995 along with the findings of the inquiry officer were given to the petitioner. The petitioner disobeyed the orders of his superiors. The request of the petitioner to change the inquiry officer was rejected since there was no substance in it. The inquiry report has been supplied to the petitioner which was received by him.

(3.) I have heard Sri Manish Goyal, counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajni Kant Tiwari, learned standing counsel for the respondents. Counsel for the petitioner made following submissions :