DEEN DAYAL SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Amit Bose learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Shri Shatrughan Choudhary learned Standing Counsel. Question of law involved in the present writ petition is as to whether under Regulation 497 of the U.P. Police Regulations a suspended employee shall be entitled to continue only at his place of posting by residing in police line of the district concerned and cannot be transferred to other place ? And under what circumstances this Court can interfere with the quantum of punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority ? Whether the services of an employee can be dismissed on account of unauthorised absence and non-compliance of a transfer order ?

(2.) Petitioner was a Police Constable. In the year 1988 he was posted in the 32nd Battalion of PAC at Lucknow. Against the petitioner a First Information Report was lodged on 30.12.1988 on the ground that petitioner had refused to perform patrol duty while posted at Katra Bijan Beg, Police Station Chowk Lucknow. One another allegation against the petitioner was that when platoon commander had made certain enquiry from the petitioner, instead of submitting a reply in a dignified manner he alleged to have misbehaved with the platoon commander and also threatened him for dire consequence. It has been also alleged that petitioner had proceeded on leave 21.11.1988 without sanction and any intimation to the competent authority. A First Information Report was lodged against the petitioner. Proceedings under Section 8 of the U.P. PAC Act was also initiated. Thereafter, the petitioner was suspended by an order dated 31.12.1988. Later on by order dated 17.1.1989 petitioner was transferred from 32nd Battalion PAC Lucknow to 2nd Battalion PAC of District Sitapur by the Deputy Inspector General of PAC Lucknow. The commandant of 32nd Battalion PAC had communicated the order of transfer on 28.1.1989 to his counterpart at Sitapur. Petitioner was relieved in pursuance to transfer order by the commandant of 32nd Battalion, Lucknow on 22.1.1989 to enable him to join at Sitapur. Accordingly the relevant records were sent to Sitapur. The commandant of 2nd Battalion Sitapur had written a letter dated 17.3.1989 to the petitioner to report for duty, which was alleged to be not accepted by the petitioner. The letter was sent by registered post. Under these facts and circumstances and allegations, along with relevant material on record a charge-sheet dated 7.9.1989 was served on the petitioner followed by another supplementary charge-sheet dated 9/14.12.1989. However, petitioner had not submitted any reply to the charge-sheet. The Enquiry Officer had fixed 20.1.1990 as a date for recording of evidence and accordingly the petitioner was informed on 15.1.1990 but he had not turned up. Again by letter dated 21.1.1990 petitioner was called on to participate in inquiry and produce evidence on 15.2.1990 but he had not turned up. Under these facts and circumstances an ex parte inquiry was conducted and thereafter the inquiry officer has submitted his report on 7.4.1990. After receipt of inquiry report a show cause notice dated 9.4.1990 was sent and served on petitioner on 5.5.1990. Petitioner had not submitted any reply to show cause notice. Copy of inquiry report dated 7.4.1990 has been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. After considering the inquiry report the commandant of 2nd Battalion PAC Sitapur (opposite party No, 2) had dismissed the petitioner's services by impugned order dated 17.5.1990, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition.

(3.) Shri Amit Bose learned Counsel for the petitioner had assailed the impugned order mainly on two grounds; firstly, the commandant 2nd Battalion PAC Sitapur was having no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order of dismissal and secondly, under Regulation 397 of Police Regulation, a suspend employee could not have been transferred to other place and such person shall be entitled to remain at the place where the surety resides.