BRIJENDRA SINGH YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was serving as Constable in U. P. Police Force, has filed this writ petition challenging the validity of the order of dismissal dated 6.1.92 (Annexure 6) passed by respondent No. 3. the then Senior Superintendent of Police, Jhansi, which order has been confirmed by the order dated 10.4.92 of the appeilate authority, respondent No. 2, dismissing the appeal.

(2.) While passing the dismissal order, the appointing authority purported to. have exercised powers under the provisions of clause 8 (2), Proviso (b) of the U. P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules. 1991 dispensing with the regular enquiry on the ground that it was not reasonably practicable to hold the enquiry. The grounds of dismissal, as stated in the dismissal order, were that the petitioner sent a letter dated 27.12.91 directly to the Governor, Uttar Pradesh, making some demands and further stating therein that in case the demands were not fulfilled, he would commence his fast unto death and thereafter would also commit self-immolation on 9.1.92. The same demand was again reiterated by the petitioner in his letter dated 2.1.92, wherein again a threat was given that the petitioner wogld commit self-immolation on 14.1.92. These two letters have been treated as act of highest order of indiscipline in police force amounting to gross misconduct. The dismissal order further mentions that a secret enquiry was got conducted by Sri Ranvir Singh Chauhan, then posted under respondent No. 3 as Circle Officer, Police Lines, Jhansi to ascertain the veracity of the letters alleged to have been sent by the petitioner. Sri Chauhan is said to have submitted a confidential enquiry report to respondent No. 3. wherein it was reported that the fact of sending the letters was correct as was admitted by the petitioner before his fellow colleagues and as the petitioner wielded considerable influence over the police force, no person was coming forward to depose against him and the petitioner has created a panic, which was nothing else than the disposition of mutiny. The Inquiry Officer thus was of the opinion that it was not reasonably practicable to hold disciplinary enquiry and passed the impugned order of dismissal of the petitioner from service without holding a regular inquiry.

(3.) The petitioner in this petition has made the Senior Superintendent of Police a party by his name also as respondent No. 4. The petitioner challenges the impugned order mainly on the grounds that it is based on gross mala fide as a revenge by respondent No. 4 against the petitioner for raising voice against the misbehaviour of the wife of respondent No. 4 vis-a-vis a lady Constable Shama Parveen and the reasonings recorded for dispensing with the enquiry on the charges levelled against the petitioner were not at all bona fide and it was purely a plot to trap the petitioner in such a situation that the petitioner may be left with no alternative or solution to rebut the charges as alleged against him. His case further is that he has not at all signed or sent the alleged letters to the Hon,ble Governor, Uttar Pradesh nor he was in a position to have any influence over his colleagues as he was under suspension. There was no material before the Punishing Authority to dispense with the enquiry and, therefore, an imaginary ground has been created for proceeding under the above referred clause 8 (2), proviso (b) that no member of the police force was coming to depose against the petitioner and for that reason, it was not practicable to hold enquiry. Further case of the petitioner is that respondent No. 4 was so much prejudiced against the petitioner that he got the alleged secret enquiry conducted by his own man Sri Ranvir Singh Chauhan knowing fully well that the petitioner had made complaint against him also even before the matter is said to have been got enquired by him. The alleged enquiry was purely farcical and cloak to dispense with the service of the petitioner, though there was no material before the Inquiry Officer for arriving at any subjective satisfaction to dispens'e with the enquiry. Respondent No. 2 has also dismissed the appeal in a cursory manner without applying his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case.