KULWANT MALIK Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER a constable was served a charge -sheet on 9 July 2008 under the provisions of U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rule 1991(1991 Rules) initiating disciplinary proceedings for imposition of major penalty under Sub -clause (1) of Rule 14. It was alleged that while petitioner was posted at Pilibhit, the petitioner developed illicit relationship with a lady despite having a legally wedded wife, who is also a member of the force. On being transferred to Meerut the petitioner got entangled with another lady at Meerut, resulting in family tension which under Rule 4(d) of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant Conduct Rules, is a misconduct. In support of the charge, (1) the first information report lodged by the lady under Sections 376, 506, 406 I.P.C; (2) copy of the charge -sheet filed in the criminal case on the report of the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Meerut (3) complaint of the wife was relied upon.

(2.) THE petitioner submitted a reply on 11 August 2009 refuting the charges, further alleging that during the pendency of the criminal trial, the disciplinary proceedings should not be proceeded against. The Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry under 1991 Rules, submitted a report on 30 November 2009 holding the petitioner guilty of the charge. The Enquiry Officer noted that the conduct of the petitioner was in violation of the Conduct Rules, therefore, the petitioner had tarnished the image of the police force, accordingly, proposed the penalty of reduction of pay to the minimum of the scale. Against the proposed penalty a notice along with copy of the inquiry report was issued by the fourth respondent, Deputy Inspector General of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Meerut by the order dated 6 March 2010 awarded a major penalty reducing the petitioner to the minimum of the pay -scale for a period of one year. Aggrieved, petitioner filed an appeal under Rule 20 of the 1991 Rules before the third respondent, Inspector General of Police, Meerut Range which was dismissed on 5 May 2010 against which petitioner preferred a revision under Rule 23 before the second respondent, Additional Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh which was decided on 20 December 2010 upholding the order passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority.

(3.) THE petitioner is assailing the orders passed by the authorities imposing major penalty upon the petitioner under the 1991 Rules.