JAI SINGH BHANDARI Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M. M. Ghildiyal, J. Heard Sri P. S. Adhikari, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel who accepts notices for the respondents.

(2.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 3-9-2003 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Pithoragarh and order dated 14th February, 2004 passed by the Inspector General of Police, Kumaon Region, Nainital.

(3.) THE petitioner has assailed the impugned orders on various grounds. Firstly, since the Reserve Inspector is the resident of the same village to which petitioner's wife belongs, has been supporting the cause of petitioner's wife. Not only this, he has manipulated in not granting leaves to the petitioner, he indulged in rejecting the resignation letter of the petitioner and making complaint on fictitious allegations in respect of the incident which said to have been place in the night of 1-9-2003. THE action taken by the respondents is mala fide. Submission of the petitioner is that he had to gone his quarter and since there was a dispute between the petitioner and his wife, hence false allegations have been made against the petitioner alleging that he threatened his wife and his neighbours. I do not find force in the submission made by learned Counsel for the petitioner. THE respondent No. 5 who is Reserve Inspector at Police Lines, Pithoragarh may belong to the village of petitioner's wife but this lone fact will not substantiate the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the action taken by the respondents against the petitioner is mala fide. A preliminary inquiry has been conducted by the Dy. S. P. punishment order has been passed by the S. P. and the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected by the I. G. Police, but no allegations have been levelled against them.