ISHWAR PRATAP GAUTAM Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution prays that the order dated 6 March 1967 expelling the petitioner from the Police Training College he quashed.

(2.) ON 31 July 1964, the State Government issued a circular to all heads of departments in this State stating that the Government have decided to give concession to bona fide displaced goldsmiths for purposes of appointment to services and posts under the State Government, recruitment to which is made otherwise than through the Public Service Commission. One of the concessions given was that the upper age-limit in their case shall be relaxed up to the extent of five years. Persons desirous of having these concessions were to produce identification certificates from the tahsildar concerned in the prescribed form. A copy of the form was annexed to this circular. The petitioner applied for selection to the Police Training College. He filed a copy of the certificate granted by the tahsildar along with his application. He was called for an interview where it transpired that the certificate furnished by the petitioner was not proper. The certificate actually showed that the petitioner's grandfather was a displaced goldsmith. The chairman of the board then asked the petitioner to submit another certificate relating to himself. The petitioner obtained a certificate from the tahsildar concerned on 11 April 1966 and sent it to the selection board. The matter of exemption of the petitioner's age-limit was, it appears, referred by the selection board to the Government for decision. It may be noticed that the petitioner was over-age by nine months. The Government informed the respondents by a telegram that call notice may be issued to the candidate Ishwar Pratap Gautam, the petitioner. On 11 May 1966, the State Government informed the petitioner that he has bean directed to be admitted to the training course. Thereupon, the Senior Superintendent of Police issued an order to the petitioner to present himself for training at the Meerut College by 15 May 1966. Paragraph 2 of this letter stated that the petitioner's character and antecedents had been found satisfactory. It farther stated that: Your admission to the Police Training College will be liable to removal from the college, if on enquiry your character and antecedents are reported to be unsatisfactory.

(3.) THE petitioner continued his training at the college, when on 11 January 1937, the Principal of the college served on the petitioner a notice to show cause why he should not be expelled from the college under Para. 23 (ii) (a) of the Uttar Pradesh Police Training-College Manual for gross misconduct in submitting a false certificate that he was a displaced goldsmith. It was stated in. this notice that the certificate was obtained by the petitioner by misrepresentation of facts to the authorities concerned for securing age exemption. It was mentioned that on enquiry by the Additional District Magistrate, Agra, it was established beyond all reasonable doubts that the petitioner was not a displaced goldsmith under the Gold Control Order and was not entitled to the exemption of age. On 23 January 1967, the petitioner sent a request for furnishing a copy of the report of the Additional District Magistrate and also the statements on which the Additional District Magistrate based his report. The Principal replied that there was no provision for supplying copies of the papers and hence they cannot be supplied to him. The petitioner was asked to submit his explanation by 15 February 1967. The same day the petitioner made an application for time. Ha also made a prayer that he at least be permitted to see the documents, if the copies he had asked for earlier are not supplied to him. On 14 February 1967. the Principal replied that the notice issued to the petitioner was self-contained. The question of seeing the documents does not arise. The petitioner then made another application on 15 February 1967 asking for fifteen days' leave from the college and extension of time for furnishing the explanation, so that he may be able to collect materials in support of his explanation and to prove that he was a displaced goldsmith. On this the petitioner was granted two days' casual leave, i. e. , 18 and 17 February 1937 and was asked to submit the explanation by 18 February 1987, latest. The petitioner filed his explanation on 18 February. In this explanation he stated that on 16 and 17 February 1987, he ma/a efforts to get copies of the statements of the, witnesses, reports of the tahsildar patwari and the pradhan as also certificates showing that he had worked as a goldsmith, but found that the direct courts as wall as the tehsil were all closed owing to election work and all the officials were out on duties in connexion with the elections. He could not as such obtain any of the documents. He prayed that he may be given further time to produce his evidence in defence. He also prayed that he may be granted seven days leave from the college to collect the essential proof. It does not appear that this request was granted. By the impugned order passed on 6 March 1967, the petitioner was expelled.