OMVEER SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & OTHERS
LAWS(UTN)-2012-11-64
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on November 06,2012

OMVEER SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
State of Uttarakhand and others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) By this writ petition, the petitioner impugned the summary order of dismissal from services passed by the Superintendent of Police, Pauri Garhwal dated 18th November, 2004 affirmed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Garhwal Division) dated 4th March, 2005 and then re-affirmed by the second appellate authority by its order dated 6th April, 2005 passed by Deputy Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarter, Dehradun.
(2.) The short fact leading to the filing of the writ petition is as follows:- The petitioner being in the roll of State Police Force, who was assigned to discharge his duty at Medical College, Meerut on 9th November, 2004, to guard one accused of a murder trial. On that date, the said accused is said to have sought permission to go to latrine. Accordingly, he along with another companion, who was also constable, allowed the accused to go to latrine, but in the latrine no water was available so the accused is said to have asked for water. It is alleged that the petitioner had gone to fetch water and on return he found to his surprise that he fled. According to him, he along with another police constable Naveen Kumar searched everywhere, but could not find, ultimately he lodged the First Information Report with the concerned police station on 16th November, 2004. Unfortunately, the Disciplinary Authority without giving any opportunity of being heard passed summary order of dismissal on 18th November, 2004. No enquiry was held invoking the emergency provision of the Rules. He had lot of things to explain, but no chance was given. According to him this is not a fit case where enquiry could be dispensed with. He says that even after service of dismissal order, he had apprehended the accused and he could bring him back into custody, in spite of this success, the dismissal order was maintained even by the first appellate authority as well as by the second appellate authority.
(3.) In the counter affidavit, the Department has said that it was not negligence simpliciter but it may have some collusive conduct with the said accused. It may so happen; it might have helped the accused to flee. His past conduct, during his service period was wholly unsatisfactory he was negligent and unmindful in discharging his duty, as such, he was punished on repeated occasions. It is surprising that on the date itself when the accused fled from his custody, no intimation was given, nor any First Information Report was lodged.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.