RAM SURAT SINGH Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Satya Prakash, the learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri P.K. Chaubey, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner No. 1 is a Sub Inspector and petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are Constables. Two show cause notices were issued separately to each of the petitioners to show cause why punishment should not be awarded, namely, one month's pay be not deducted and adverse entry for the year 2000 be not imposed. The show cause notices stated that the petitioners were found indulging in illegal gratification from the truck drivers and that they misbehaved with the Inspector. Naini when he accosted them. Based on the show cause notice, the petitioners submitted their reply and thereafter two punishment were awarded by orders dated 5.9.2002, passed by the Superintendent of Police. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, filed an appeal which was dismissed by an order dated 26.10.2002, passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police and thereafter the petitioners preferred a revision which was also dismissed by an order dated 12.9.2003, passed by the Inspector General of Police.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the entire proceedings were violative of the procedure contemplated under Rule 14 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). The submission of the petitioners is that apart from the show cause notice, no charge-sheet was given or served nor any oral inquiry was made nor an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses was given and therefore, the entire procedure adopted was in violation of principles of natural justice as well as in violation of the procedure laid down in Appendix-I of Rule 14(1) of the Rules. The learned Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the order of punishment relies upon a preliminary report which recorded the statement of the witnesses and a copy of the preliminary report was never supplied to the petitioners, therefore, the petitioners were deprived of a valuable right.