JAI PRAKASH SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the 8 parties.

(2.) PETITIONER was appointed as police constable in the year 1986. On 01.05.2005 petitioner was suspended by Commandant 37 B P.A.C. Battalion, Kanpur. Suspension order is Annexure 1 to the writ petition. It states that disciplinary proceedings against the pe titioner are contemplated on the charge of mis-behaviour with the Commandant on 1-5-2005 during monthly Sainik Sammellan. Sus pension Order was passed under Rule 17(1) of Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Sub ordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. After two days i.e. on 3-5-2005 dismissal order was passed by the Comman dant under Rule 8(2)(b) of the above Rules. The said order runs into 11 pages and in para 8 it records that as the incident occurred in the presence of the Commandant (Appoint ing authority who passed the termination or der) hence there was no need of holding any inquiry. No charge sheet etc. was issued and no inquiry worth its name was held before passing dismissal order. Appeal against the said order was filed which was dismissed by D.I.G. P.A.C., Kanpur on 24-5-2005. Said or der is Annexure 3 to the writ petition. Both the orders have been challenged through this writ petition.

(3.) IN this manner there were eight censure entries and three minor penalties against the petitioner. IN the dismissal order it is men tioned that in spite of so many censure en tries and minor punishments petitioner had not improved himself. He was always quar relling with his officer and with his colleagues and assaulting them. It was also mentioned that higher authorities had directed that peti tioner should be kept under watch through order dated 20-8-2004, hence his personal file had been opened. Commandant who passed the dismissal order also mentioned that even though he had given detailed suggestion and warned the petitioner on three occasions in orderly room to improve his conduct but he did not do so and he misbehaved on 1-5-2005 in monthly Sainik Sammelan in the presence of Officers and employees which affected the constables and other employees. It was also observed that P.A.C. being disciplined force such thing could not be condoned and con tinuance of petitioner in service could lead to some grave incident. Accordingly, it was con cluded that there was no occasion to hold departmental inquiry and it was not feasible and not necessary. Accordingly dismissal or der was passed.