VINOD KUMAR TEWARI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In brief, the facts of the case is that the petitioner, a constable in the Provincial Armed Constabulary (P.A.C.), whose service conditions is governed by the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991(1991 Rules). Charge sheet was served upon the petitioner on 9 January 2002 mentioning that while the petitioner was posted as Post Commander at Camp Village Kheradih, Thana Aroura, Mirzapur, on 22 November 2001 at 16.30 hours, naxalites attacked the Camp and looted 14 S.L.R., 1350 cartridges, 1 staingun and 192 cartridges, destroyed the Government property after putting it on fire. The petitioner failed to discharge his duty as per the Rules prescribed in the Margdarshak Niyamawali. The incident according to the respondents took place due to dereliction of duty by the petitioner. The petitioner replied to the charge mentioning, therein, that the police force was not adequate at that point of time as required under the Rules, no follower was posted at the Camp, due to which the petitioner had to cook the meals. On the date of the incident only two Head constables and seven constables were posted at the camp against the required strength of 11 constables. On the said date, the Santry saw 40 to 50 labourers coming towards the camp. The Santry could not understand the motive of the naxalites disguised as labourers, therefore, the Santri did not alert the others nor made any signal or indication of imminent danger. According to the petitioner, the incharge of the camp, who is the Platoon Commander, barely visited the camp and resided at the Chauki, whereas, it was the duty of the Platoon Commander to stay at the camp. Due to the non availability of follower, the mess arrangement was not proper at the camp, therefore, the Platoon Commander was not staying at the camp; had the Platoon Commander being staying at the camp, he would have been the proper person to have taken an appropriate decision at the relevant time.

(2.) The Enquiry Officer on conducting the enquiry proposed the penalty of dismissal which was duly imposed by the disciplinary authority on 12 June 2002. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was rejected by the third respondent, Deputy Inspector General of Police (P.A.C.), Varanasi Zone, Varanasi vide order dated 25 September 2002, thereafter, the revision was also turned down by the second respondent, Inspector General of Police (P.A.C.) on 28 May 2003.

(3.) Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a claim petition, Vinod Kumar Tiwari Versus State of U.P. and others(Claim Petition No. 298 of 2003) before the State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow. The Tribunal heard the claim petition along with other petitions of similarly situated persons and by a common judgement and order dated 31 May 2007 allowed the claim petition setting aside the impugned orders, directing the reinstatement of the petitioner and giving liberty to the opposite party to conduct the enquiry afresh by re-evaluating the evidence on record and then drawing the conclusions.