VIJAI BAHADUR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. R. Singh, J. Petitioner was enlisted into set vice as a constable to U. P. Provlncial Armed Constabulary at Kanpur on 22-11-1966. While posted at: 36th P. A. C. Battalion stationed at Ram Nagar, Varanasi, the petitioner, it seems, reported for Sick Parade on 7-4-1975 without depositing his Kit. The Day Havaldar directed him to deposit his Kit in abidance of which, the petitioner deposited his Kit and reported back to Sick Parade in plain attire. This act of the petitioner was taken to be an act of indiscipline and he was served with a show-cause notice dated 7-4-1975, calling upon him to submit his explanation as a step in the direction of taking appropriate action against him and by order dated 16-5-1975, the petitioner was awarded 14 days' Punishment Drill-an orderly room punishment-in retribution for his delinquency of participating in the Sick Parade in plain attire. It may be observed that petty breaches of discipline and triffling cases of misconduct by police officer not above the rank of Head Constable, are enquired into and disposed of in orderly room and punishment in such cases is awarded in summary manner inform ing the delinquent verbally of the act or omission on which it is proposed to punish him vide order dated 21-5-1975, the petitioner was discharged from service on payment of one mouth's pay in lieu of notice. Subsequently, however, the order dated 21-5-1975 was recalled and the petitioner was restituted to service with effect from 21-5-1975 vide order dated 9th September 1975 and by a subsequent order dated 21-10- 1975, the petitioner was directed to suffer the 14 days' Punishment Drill awarded to him by order dated 16-5-1975. It is said that the petitioner refused to undergo the Drill Punishment notwithstanding the order, dated 21-10-1975, which snowballed into his being suspended from service with effect from 4-2- 19 6. Subsequently, he was charge-sheeted initially vide charge-sheet dated j-2-1976 (Arinexure-3 to the petition) issued by Sri Azhar Ali Khan, Senior Asstt. Commandant and later on, an identical charge-sheet was served to the petitioner on 21-5-1976 by Sri Ashok Kumar, Commandant of 36th Battalion, P. A. C. Ram Nagar, Varanasi under Section 7 of the Police Act. In expiation of the charges as contained in the charge-sheet dated 21-5-1976, the petitioner submitted his reply and one of the pleas raised by him, was that _the disciplinary preceding be postponed till the disposal of the revision, which the petitioner had preferred on 6-4-1976 in the meantime against the orders dated 16-5-1975 under Paragraph 511 (b) of the Police Regulations. The Disciplinary Authority, however, proceeded with the enquiry and dismissed the petitioner from service by means of the order dated 18-2-1977. The revision preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 16-5-1975, was, in the meantime, dismissed by order dated 21- 10-1976 as time-barred as also on the premise that it had no force. The order of dismissal dated 18-2- S 977 was taken in challenge before the Services Tri bunal which climaxed its judgment by dismissing the claim petition vide judgment and order dated 23-1 1-1979. It would be useful to quip here that against the order of discharge dated 21-5-1975, the petitioner went up in writ petition being writ petition No. 7235 of 1975 and the disciplinary proceedings subsequent to the order of discharge were embarked upon during the pendency of the said writ petition. The Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 18-7- 1977, dismissed the petitioner from service. The claim petition preferred by the petitioner, having been dismissed by order dated 23-11-1979, the instant petition came to be filed challeging the dismissal of the petitioner from service as also impugning the judgment and order of the Service Tribunal dismissing the claim peti tion. The order dated 21-10-1976 rejecting the revision preferred against the order dated 16-5-1975 awarding punishment Drill of 14 days is also sought to be quashed.

(2.) HEARD Sri R. N. Singh, appearing for the petitioner and the Stand ing Counsel appearing for the State Authorities.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties and having bestowed my thoughtful considerations to the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, I am of the view that the peti tion on merits to be allowed. The petitioner was first required to deposit the Uniform before appearing in the Sick Parade and therefore, his parti cipation in the Sick Parade in plain attire cannot be reckoned as an act of indiscipline. The revision preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 16-5- 1975, was, in my opinion, illegally rejected by order dated 21-10-19/6. Regulation 511 of the Police Regulations as substituted by Notification No. 3114/vui-A-l 13-65, dated 29-3-19. 58 being germane to the points involved in the case is quoted below : "511, (a) The power of revision, may in the case of all orders an appeal would lie under paragraph $08 (1) be exercised suo motu by any authority to whom the appeal would lie. (b) Without prejudice to the provisions of clause (a), the Inspector General of Policed may revise an order of a subordinate autho rity in non-appealable cases and also in cases of acquittal. (c) No record of a case decided by a subordinate authority shall ordinarily be called for after six months from the date of the order sought to be revised. (d) No order adversely affecting to Government servant shall be passed in, exercise of reversionary powers, ordinarily after six months from the date of receipt of records except for very Special reasons to be recorded in writing. (e) No authority shall suo motu exercise the power of revision in any case more than once. "