SHIV LAL SONKER Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the appellant, Shri S.K. Kalia, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Ankit Pandey and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. This Special Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 22.3.2002, passed in Writ Petition No. 552 (SS) of 1993 and the judgment and order dated 22.4.2004, passed in Review Petition No. 72 of 2002. By the judgment and order dated 22.3.2002, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellant against the order of dismissal. Thereafter the petitioner filed a Review Petition, which was also dismissed by the judgment and order dated 22.4.2004.

(2.) Bereft of unnecessary details, in short the facts of the case are that the appellant while working as constable and posted at Police Station Khairabad, District Sitapur, was subjected to disciplinary proceedings. The disciplinary proceedings ultimately culminated in passing an order of dismissal, which was assailed in the writ petition on the ground that the disciplinary proceedings were not only conducted in blatant disregard of the principles of natural justice but relevant documents such as copy of the Medical Report, copy of the enquiry report etcetera which were utilized against him in the enquiry, were never supplied to him. It has also been contended that in disciplinary proceedings he was not only denied the opportunity to cross-examine the Station Officer but provisions of Paras 486 and 490 of the Police Regulations were also not followed, causing serious prejudice.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that it is the case of the respondents that the appellant misbehaved with the public including one Shri Bakridi and entered into 'Mar-Peet' with them under the influence of the alcohol, while on duty. The alleged misconduct amounts to commission of a cognizable offence under sections 323, 504 and 506, I.P.C. as such as per Para 486 of the U.P. Police Regulations, it was incumbent upon the opposite parties to have first made the police investigation regarding the commission of such offence and only thereafter the proceedings under section 7 of the Police Act could have been initiated against the appellant.