RAJENDRA PRASAD GUPTA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The fate of this writ petition would turn out on the determination of twin simple legal questions--firstly, whether a disciplinary authority can order de nova enquiry against a Government servant on the same allegations and charges which have already been dropped, and, secondly, whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against a notice to show cause why the enquiry into the matter be not re-initiated, is maintainable. The controversy emanates in the background of the following facts : The petitioner No. 1 is Sub-inspector, while petitioner No. 2 is Head Constable in the Civil Police posted respectively at Meerut and Pilibhit. The gravamen of the charge against the petitioners was that they had misbehaved and ill-treated Jasbir Singh, resident of village Harralya Kanja. Police Station Gajraula, district Pilibhit, who had come to the Police Station to lodge an F.I.R. on 25.11.1993 and that instead of recording the F.I.R.. faithfully and correctly, it was deflated to minimise the offence. Notices dated 7.3.1996, Annexures-6 and 7 to the writ petition were issued to the two petitioners to show cause as to why an adverse entry may not be made in their service record for the remissness aforesaid. The petitioners submitted their replies to the show cause notice on 26.3.1996 and 21.6.1996. copies of which are Annexures-8 and 9 to the writ petition. After taking into consideration the explanations/replies submitted by the petitioners and being satisfied by them, the Superintendent of Police. Pilibhit. by order dated 1.7.1996, Annexure-10 and by another order dated 30.7.1996, Annexure-11. exonerated the petitioners and discharged the notices. In this manner, the chapter was finally closed and no further departmental proceedings were to be taken against the petitioners. The idea to record adverse entry in the service records of the petitioners was dropped. Subsequently, after about three years, in pursuance of the order dated 16.2.1999 passed by the State Government, fresh notices dated 1.7.1999, Annexures-12 and 13 to the writ petition, were served on the petitioners intimating them that a decision has been taken to initiate departmental enquiry afresh in the matter of alleged impropriety with regard to the F.I.R. lodged by Jasbir Singh on 25.11.1993. They were further required to show cause as to why the proposed adverse entry incorporated in the notices themselves be not made in their service record. It is in these circumstances that the petitioners have come before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer that the notices aforesaid, Annexures-12 and 13 to the writ petition be quashed.

(2.) Heard Sri Hemendra Kumar. learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned standing counsel. Since the legal questions involved in the present case are well-settled, and stand concluded by authoritative pronouncements of the Apex Court, as Well as this Court, instead of dragging this petition unnecessarily, I dispose it of finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) Learned standing counsel frankly conceded that the notices dated 1.7.1999 have been issued with a view to initiate departmental enquiry afresh in respect of the same allegations and alleged impropriety of the petitioners, for which they were proceeded against earlier and the proceedings were finally dropped after consideration of their replies/explanations.