RAM KISHORE SINGH Vs. U P STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Counsel for the parities and perused the record.

(2.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity and correctness of impugned order dated 19,1.93 (Annexure-13 to the writ petition) dismissing him from service.

(3.) The delinquent employee was a Constable in Armed Police Force against whom departmental enquiry was being conducted under Section 7 of the Police Act on the following charges :^^ tc ;g o"kZ 1991 eas iqfyl ykbu] xksj[kiqj esafnukad 8-4-1991 dks vkj-Vh-vks- xknZ] xksj[kiqj essa M~;wVh esa vkj{kh l'kL= ds in ij fu;qDr Fkk rks blhvof/k 8-4-91 dks fcuk fdlh vodk'k ;k lwpuk dsvuqifLFkr gksdj fnukad 28-6-91 dks 80 fnol ckn okilvk;k A blh izdkj fnukad 12-7-91 dks jkf= x.kuk ijsM lsfcuk fdlh vodk'k ;k lwpuk ds vuf/kr :i ls vuqifLFkrgksdj fnukad 26-11-91 dks 137 fnol ckn okil vk;k A iqu% fnukd 29-11-91 ls fcuk fdlh vuqefr vodk'k ;k lwpuk dsyxkrkj yEch vof/k ls vuqifLFkr py jgk gS A bl dk ;g R; mldh ?kksj ykijokgh] mnklhurk] vdeZ.;rk] vuq'kklughurk] drZO;ikyu esa in dh vk;ksX;rk dks bafxr djrk gS A** One Jitendra Pratap Singh, S.H.O. Kotwali was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The petitioner was served with the charge sheet and was given opportunity to submit his explanation and defend himself. It is alleged that the petitioner neither appeared before the Enquiry Officer nor submitted any explanation to the charge- sheet. He also did not give any information and also did not produce any witness or submitted arguments. The Enquiry Officer found all the charges proved against the petitioner. After noting the fact that the petitioner was not participating in the enquiry he concluded that the petitioner was unfit for service in the armed police as his conduct was not conducive to discipline and could bring adverse/wrong influence on other employees which would not be proper for the State. He submitted enquiry report dated 29.12.92 recommending dismissal from service. Leave without wages for the period 8.4.1991 to 28.6.91 (total 80 days), 12.7.91 to 26.11.91 (total 137 days) and from 29.11.91 up to the date of dismissal was also recommended.