BHAGWANT PRASAD ARYA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Bhagwant Prasad Arya, was awarded minor penalty of "censure" vide order dated 28.3.1989/30.3.1989 (Annexure-3) passed by the Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur (for short S.P.); his representation/appeal against the order aforesaid was dismissed vide order dated 8.2.1990- (Annexure-4) passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Varanasi (for short D.I.G.); further by order dated 27.11.1987 passed by S.P., Jaunpur a penalty of 'Censure' was imposed; his representation/appeal has been rejected by D.I.G., Varanasi. By the aforesaid orders the petitioner has been awarded adverse entries of 'Censure' for the years 1986 and 1987 which is under challenge in the writ petition.

(2.) The facts emerging out of the pleadings, in brief, are that the petitioner is a confirmed Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil) and has completed ten years of service as such without flaw; he was posted as S.O. incharge of police station Deenapur, district Varanasi on 4.2.86 where he continued up to 6.8.86; the S.P., Jaunpur served a show cause notice dated 1.11.88 (Annexure-1) upon the petitioner requiring him to explain as to why and adverse entry be not recorded for your negligence in execution of arrest warrant dated 29.9.84 issued under National Security Act; petitioner submitted his reply dated 14.3.89 (Annexure-2); the Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur to whom enquiry was transferred by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (for short D.I.G.), Varanasi, passed the impugned order dated 30.3.89 (Annexure-3) awarding adverse entry of Censure against the petitioner; representation filed by the petitioner under Para 514 of the Police Regulation was also rejected by the D.I.G., Varanasi, Range Varanasi by his order dated 8.2.90 (Annexure-4). The other show cause notice dated 27.11.87 (Annexure-5) was also issued by the S.P., Jaunpur for alleged act or omission by the petitioner during the period he was posted as S.O., P.S. Pakarhi, district Ballia. The petitioner was required to show cause as to why an adverse remark be not recorded in his C.R. for not registering the case under Section 379 I.P.C. and under Sections 4/18 of the Forest Act, the petitioner submitted his reply dated 9.3.88 vide Annexure 6 to the writ petition; the S.P., Jaunpur passed the impugned order dated 24.3.88 (Annexure-7) imposing penalty of Censure which was confirmed by the DIG., Varanasi, Range Varanasi vide his order dated 2.4.89; the revision application (Anncxurc-9) filed by the petitioner is not being decided despite reminder dated 1.1.90 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition); it is asserted that the orders passed by the S.P., Jaunpur and D.I.G., Varanasi, Range Varanasi are wholly illegal, without jurisdiction and suffers from violation of principle of natural justice and as such deserves to the set aside; the petitioner represented his case to the higher authorities for considering his case for promotion it remained undecided due to the adverse entries awarded pursuant to the two aforesaid orders, the petitioner was reverted from the post of S.O. incharge to the post of Sub-Inspector; the petitioner has put in by now 23 years of service as Sub-Inspector and there is no adverse entry throughout except the adverse entries under challenge in the present writ petition; non-consideration of the case of the petitioner for promotion is wholly arbitrary and tainted with malice,

(3.) The respondents have filed counter affidavit wherein the factual aspect of the case has not been disputed, the petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit.