HEERA SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL
Referred Judgements :-
M. PAUL ANTHONY V/S BHARAT GOLD MINES LTD
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)BY means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of
certiorari for Quashing impugned order dated 25 -04 -2000 passed by
respondent No.4 where by the petitioner was dismissed from service and
order dated 18 -06 -2000 passed by respondent no. 3 by which the
departmental appeal preferred by him in this regard is also dismissed.
(2.)BRIEF facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition, are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Constable on 2 -01 -974
with the U.P. Police at Nainital. Subsequently, he was posted at
Pithoragarh in the year 1983 and thereafter in Tehri Garhwal in 1990.
Lastly he was performing his duties in the District of Pauri Garhwal
since 1994. On 1 -04 -1999, the petitioner was allegedly implicated in a
case and crime No. 244 of 1999 registered at Police Station, Srinagar
under section 34 of Police Act with the allegations that while on duty as
Treasury Guard on 01 -04 -1999 at 9:00 P.M., the petitioner was allegedly
found in a drunken state, making nuisance, shouting loudly and using
abusive language (copy of the report at Annexure -3 to the writ petition).
On said charge, the petitioner was placed under suspension (copy
Annexure -4 to the writ petition) by Shri Piyush Kumar, Superintendent of
Police, Pauri Garhwal and Shri Narain Dutt Joshi, Reserve Police
Inspector was directed to hold a preliminary inquiry (copy Annexure - 5 to
the writ petition) who recommended departmental inquiry against the
petitioner. However, after preliminary inquiry, the suspension order
passed against the petitioner was revoked and meanwhile, Shri Vijay
Bhatia who took over as superintendent of Police, Pauri Garhwal, directed
to initiate the departmental inquiry against the petitioner and Shri D K.
Thapliyal, Dy. Superintendent of Police, Pauri Garhwal was asked to draft
the charges under Section 7 of Police Regulation 1861. Later on Shri
Hukam Singh. Dy. Superientendent of Police conducted the inquiry and
recorded the statements of Head Constable Shri Prem Kant Misra, Constable
Rajbir Singh and Sub -Inspector Rajkishore Singh but no public witness was
examined. It is alleged in the writ petition that the statement of
witnesses recorded were contradictory. The Inquiry Report (copy
Annexure -7 to the writ petition) was submitted against the petitioner by
the Dy. Superintendent of Police holding the petitioner guilty. It is
alleged in the writ petition that the Inquiry Officer did not care to
consider the report of the Doctor about consciousness and normal speech
of the petitioner mentioned in the Medical Report (copy of Medical Report
at Annexure -8 to the writ petition). Superintendent of Police (respondent
No.4) on the basis of Inquiry Report dismissed the petitioner from
service vide order dated 25 -04 -2000 (copy Annexure -l to the writ
petition). Against said order, the petitioner preferred the departmental
appeal before appellate authority i.e. Dy. Inspector General, Garhwal
Range, Dehradun who upheld the punishment and dismissed the appeal vide
order dated 18 -06 -2000 (copy Annexure -2 to the writ petition). It appears
that the petitioner made a revision before the Inspector General, Meerut
zone, Meerut (copy Annexure -10 to the writ petition) but to no avail.
Meanwhile, in the criminal case No: 244 of 1999 under section 34 of
Police Act, Shri Prashant Joshi, Learned Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar,
on 18 -11 -2001 (one year after punishment awarded by departmental
authorities) acquitted the petitioner from the charge (copy of judgment
Annexure -11 to the writ petition). It is alleged in 'the writ petition
that dismissal order passed by the Department is unjust and unfair and
relying the principle of law laid down in M. Paul Anthony V/s Bharat Gold
Mines Ltd. (1992) 2 -U.P.L.B.E.C. 1280, this writ petition has been filed.
(3.)ON behalf of the respondents no. 1 to 4, a counter affidavit has been filed in which the appointment and postings of the petitioner
are not denied. But it is alleged that on the date of incident i.e.
01 -04 -1999 at about 9:00 P.M. when the petitioner was on duty as Treasury Guard, in a drunken state, created nuisance on which Crime No. 244/99 was
registered against him under section 34 of Police Act, with Police
Station, Srinagar. It is also admitted that the petitioner was placed
under suspension immediately and the inquiry was ordered. Defending
conclusions of the Departmental enquiry, it is stated in the counter
affidavit that full and fair opportunity was afforded to the petitioner.
Before coming to the conclusion in departmental enquiry, it is further
stated in counter affidavit that under para 373 A of Police Regulations,
during duty hours the policemen are prohibited from taking alcohol but
the petitioner not only remained alcoholic at the time of duty but also
indulged in acts of indiscipline. Lastly, it is stated that the impugned
order of dismissal and order of dismissal of appeal are just and in
accordance with the law:
I heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit along with the
annexures annexed thereto.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.