ASHOK KUMAR Vs. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that petitioner was appointed as Constable in Civil Police on 31.8.1981. In the year 1995 he was transferred to Mathura. On 13.6.2000 petitioner was assigned duties to take two accused namely Babloo son of Odal, and Rakesh alias Manoj son of Allo, before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura. Another accused Prakash, who was also to be taken to the Court was in custody of Constable Karan Singh. The said accused Prakash escaped from custody. A case crime No. 91/2000 was registered against petitioner on 13.6.2000, under Sections 223/224 IPC at P.S. Sadar Bazar, Mathura. On 27.7.2000 accused Prakash alias Vijay Prakash was arrested by Police personnel of P.S. Kotwali, Mathura. The said accused Prakash has long history in crime, and has been implicated in about fifteen crime cases detailed in the report, out of which case crime No. 161/1994 is under Sections 302/307 IPC, crime No. 148/1994 under Section 302 IPC, crime No. 80/1989 under Section 356 IPC, crime No. 1004/1992 under Section 302/201/392/411 IPC, and crime No. 94/1998 under Section 307 IPC amongst other cases, which are registered against him. In pursuance of the directions of Senior Superintendent of Police, Mathura dated 14.6.2000 and 5.8.2000 an enquiry report was submitted by Cycle Officer, Sadar, Mathura, on 21.9.2000, on which petitioner and Shivdan Singh were suspended and the departmental enquiry was stayed up to the decision of the criminal case.

(3.) The Circle Officer, Sadar, Mathura, took statements of Sri D.D. Sharma, Senior Prosecuting Officer, Head Constable Nagendra Pal Singh Chauhan, Constable Karan Singh, and Constable Rakesh Jain. It was found by him that on the date of incident accused Prakash was taken out from judicial lock up at 9.20 AM and was produced in the Court at 10.30 AM. He went back to the lock up at about 11.25 AM. The Head Constable who was incharge of said lock up namely Sri Ramesh Chandra had gone to case himself. At that time petitioner inspitc of warning by Constable Shivdan Singh, after recording his name and time, took the said accused Prakash to a place in the Court campus where his wife was waiting for him, Later on at about 1.15 PM Constable Shivdan Singh informed that the accused Prakash has escaped. At that time about 30 male and 2 female accused and undertrials, were confined in the lock up. Constable Ashok Kumar and Constable Shivdan were assigned duties to take them out from the lock up, for their production in Courts. Constable Ashok Kumar was looking after duties of preparing rojnamcha, Prakash was arrested on 27.7.2000 and on investigation he gave a statement that on 13.6.2000 Constable Ashok Kumar was on lock up duty when the accused desired to meet his wife, on which Ashok Kumar told him to spend some money. He agreed to pay, upon which Constable Ashok Kumar took him out of lock up, on the pretext of taking him to Court, and later allowed him to talk to his wife. During this period .between 12.00 AM to 1.00 PM he escaped. The Enquiry Officer reported in his conclusion that petitioner and Constable Shivdan Singh are hand in glove with criminals and allowed a hardened criminal to escape after accepting bribe from him. None of witnesses are ready to depose against him, and thus, it may not be possible to impose any departmental punishment on them. He came to a conclusion that in these circumstances, action was required to be taken to dismiss them under Rule 8 (2) (b) of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (in short Rules of 1991). Consequently petitioner was dismissed by the Senior Superintendent of Police by his order dated 24.9.2000 passed under Rule 8 (2) (b) of the Rules of 1991. Petitioner filed an appeal which has been dismissed by Deputy Inspector General of Police, Agra region, Agra. A revision petition has also been dismissed by Inspector General of Police, Kanpur. Aggrieved petitioner has filed this writ petition.