NANHEY LAL SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri R.K. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Suman Sirohi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The brief facts of the case giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner was a Sub-Inspector in U.P. Civil Police, when he was posted at Police Station Mandi Dhanura, District J.P. Nagar, an FIR was lodged against him on which a Case Crime No. 323/95, under Sections 376/506/120B I.P.C. and 3(1) 12 S.C. and S.T. Act was lodged at Police Station Asmoli, District Moradabad. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner has been suspended vide order dated 4.12.1995. The suspension order has been cancelled and the petitioner has been reinstated vide order dated 7.4.1998. In respect of the aforesaid case crime number, Session Trial No. 1253/97, State Vs. Nanhey Lal Sharma and others, has been registered. However, in the session trial, the Additional District Judge, Moradabad vide order dated 6.11.2000 acquitted the petitioner. The petitioner is now retired.

(3.) It appears that a preliminary inquiry has been directed. In the preliminary inquiry, the Circle Officer, Sambhal has submitted the preliminary inquiry report on 29.5.2002 before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Moradabad mentioning therein that the petitioner has been acquitted, as the prosecution witnesses turned hostile and as such, he recommended punishment under Rule 4 (1) Kha of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the ("Rules, 1991"). In pursuance thereof, Senior Superintendent of Police, Moradabad issued a show cause notice dated 1.5.2003 to the petitioner as to why censure entry should not be made in your character roll for the act of making the prosecution witnesses hostile in the alleged Case Crime No. 323/95, under Sections 376/506/120B I.P.C. and 3(1) 12 S.C. and S.T. Act. The petitioner has filed reply to the show cause notice vide reply dated 20.5.2003. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Moradabad passed the order dated 23.12.2005 and imposed censure entry. The petitioner filed an appeal under Rule 20 (1) of the Rules, 1991 before the Deputy Director General of Police, Moradabad Region, Moradabad. The appeal has been rejected vide order dated 28.6.2004 mainly on the ground that the petitioner was found to have made prosecution witnesses hostile on the basis of which he has been acquitted. It appears that the Senior Superintendent of Police, Moradabad has also issued a show cause notice dated 27.8.2004 asking the petitioner as to why pay and allowances for the suspension period should not be given. The petitioner filed reply stating therein that since he has been fully exonerated from the criminal charge by the criminal Court, he may be treated to be in service and full pay for the suspension period may be allowed. Against the appellate order, the petitioner filed revision under Rule 23 of the Rules, 1991 before the Inspector General of Police, Bareilly Zone, Bareilly, which has been rejected vide order dated 29.9.2005.