BRIJ BHUSHAN BAKSHI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the Court - BY means of the present petition the petitioners have challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 13.6.2007 issued by the Director General, Police, U.P., whereby an enquiry committee, to be presided over by the opposite party Nos. 4 and 5 and two other Deputy Inspector General of Police as its members, had been constituted to enquire into the irregularities of recruitment of constables for Police/P.A.C./Wireless for 2005-2006. The constitution of the committee was said to be tainted by the inclusion of opposite parties No. 4 and 5 who themselves were said to be involved in the process of recruitment/selection of constables made in the 2005-2006. It has further been assailed on the ground that once alleged irregularities having not been found proved in earlier judicial proceedings wherein same question was involved and this Court upon perusal of entire record pertaining to selection process having opined that there were no such irregularities, there was no occasion to again delve upon the same question According to petitioners the constitution of committee itself was tainted with oblique motives as also the enquiry was to be conducted pursuant thereto at the behest of 3 sitting M.L.As., of the ruling party, one of which was M.L.A. In earls while Government, but did not raise his voice against alleged irregularities.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioners since opposite parties No. 4 and 5 were involved in the process of selection, they ought not to have been made members of the committee to enquire into the allegations contained in the complaints. The petitioners' case is that there was no reason for deviating from the settled procedure of getting enquiry conducted by established agency, such as Vigilance Department, C.I.D., or C.B.C.I.D., or Anti-Corruption Department. Thus the said committee was neither constituted under any statute or commission of enquiry or any other statute which required for constitution of a committee to conduct an enquiry. It is also the case of the petitioners that at the initiation of the enquiry there had been a pre-designed strategy to propagate against the recruitment process against the concerned officers with a sole intention to malign them in public life. There has been a systematic and selective leakage of secret and confidential documents. ACCORDING to the petitioners enquiry committee broke open the sealed records in the absence of the Chairman, although they were available. Tampering of record is also alleged in the petition.

(3.) IT was also argued that opposite parties No. 4 and 5 being associated with the selection process they could not be members of the Committee under law as a person cannot be allowed to be a judge of his own cause. According to him the said opposite parties ought to have abstained themselves from conducting the enquiry. IT was also asserted that whether enquiry committee constituted under the order dated 13.6.2007 could enquire into the malpractices, favouritism and nepotism when this Court in several writ petitions, upon perusal of record, recorded a categorical finding and opined that there was nothing wrong in the selection process. Learned counsel further argued that whether the enquiry committee could open the record despite specific orders passed by this Court to keep the same in sealed cover and not to open without seeking the consent of this Court. The petitioners have been indicated against whom the enquiry was to be conducted pursuant to the order dated 13.6.2007, however, opposite parties No. 4 and 5 who were also associated with the process of selection, their names have not been included, rather they have been nominated members of the Committee.