CHANDRIKA YADAV Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 07th May, 1997, 31st August, 2003 and 28th March, 2005 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Varanasi Range, Varanasi, and Inspector General of Police, Varanasi Zone, Varanasi i.e. disciplinary authority, appellate authority and revisional authority respectively whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service and his appeal and revision have been rejected. The relevant facts, which are necessary to decide the issue in question, are that in the year 1979 the petitioner was appointed as a Constable in Civil Police. After completing his training, the petitioner was posted at District Varanasi. It is stated that petitioner has unblemished service record. He was transferred to various places and he complied with the transfer orders. The petitioner earned several appreciation letters and he was also awarded cash for his exemplary and excellent service. These facts have also been entered in the service record of the petitioner.

(2.) THE contention of the petitioner is that to harass him a frivolous complaint in the name of his wife Smt. Genda Devi was made to the Senior Superintendent of Police. That apart, with the same object, one Smt. Seema Yadav, wife of Sri Ram Lagan Yadav, had also made a false complaint alleging therein that petitioner has married with her (Smt. Seema Yadav) in the year 1993 in spite of the fact that his first wife Smt. Genda Devi is alive. It is stated that the petitioner is already married with Smt. Genda Devi and he has three sons and three daughters, who are living at his ancestral house at Chauri Chaura, District Gorakhpur, and he has never married with Smt. Seema Yadav nor he has any relationship with her. On the basis of those false complaints, a preliminary enquiry was conducted and thereafter the petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceeding under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short called as the "Rules, 1991"). However, said proceeding was purportedly conducted under Rule 14(1) of the Rules, 1991 but no charge-sheet was served on the petitioner and on the basis of an exparte enquiry, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and thereafter vide order dated 07th May, 1997 the petitioner has been dismissed from service. A copy of the order of dismissal dated 07th May, 1997 has been brought on record as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. In the dismissal order it is mentioned that on 28th December, 1996 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner under Rule 14 (1)(Ka) (sic) of the Rules, 1991 after completing departmental proceedings. Said show cause notice was stated to be accompanied by the "finding" and was sent through special messenger. But the petitioner was not available at his home, therefore, a copy of the show cause notice as well as the "finding" was pasted at the front of his house. Since the petitioner did not submit reply to the show cause notice, the disciplinary authority found that all the charges levelled against him were proved and there was no procedural defect in the departmental proceeding. Against this background, the disciplinary authority passed the order of dismissal dated 07th May, 1997.

(3.) FEELING aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the petitioner filed an appeal before the respondent no. 3/ Deputy Inspector General of Police, Varanasi Range, Varanasi. A copy of the ground of appeal has been brought on record as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. The appeal of the petitioner has been rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated 31st August, 2003 by recording finding that from the records of the preliminary enquiry (izkjfEHkd tkap vk[;k) it is established that the petitioner has married with another lady in the year 1993 during the lifetime of his first wife and he has six children from his first wife. The appellate authority has also recorded in its order that on the basis of preliminary enquiry when disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and charge-sheet was sent to him, he was not found at his house and, therefore, charge-sheet and other documents were served on his heirs. Since the petitioner failed to submit reply to the charge-sheet nor did he attend the disciplinary proceeding, the charges levelled against him were found to be proved, therefore, he was found guilty.