KAILASH SINGH Vs. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
LAWS(ALL)-2001-1-84
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on January 11,2001

KAILASH SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

S.R.Singh, J. - (1.) Heard Shri C.B. Yadav, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) The relief claimed in this writ petition is that the orders dated 23.3.1995, being Annexures 7 and 8, and the appellate order dated 30.3.1996/24.4.1996 being Annexure 9, as well as the revisional order dated 28.12.1997, being Annexure 12, are sought to be quashed.
(3.) By order dated 23.3.1995, being Annexure 1, censor entry was awarded to the petitioner and by order of even date, being Annexure 8, the period of absence from 21.4.1994 till 29.7.1994 was treated as leave without pay. He filed an appeal which was dismissed by an order dated 24.4.1996 referred to above. The revision filed by him was also dismissed by order dated 28.12.1997. The matter came up before this Court on 1.9.1999 on which date the following order was passed : "Heard Sri C.B. Yadav, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel. The petitioner is a Constable in Civil Police. After departmental enquiry the petitioner has been awarded the censure entry and has also been treated as being on leave without pay for a period of 90 days. The petitioner preferred an appeal under Rule 20 of U.P. Police Officers of the Sub-Ordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 as well as revision under Rule 20 of the said Rules. Both of them have been rejected. Learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the petitioner came to know of the orders on revision application only on 21.7.1999 when a counter-affidavit was filed on a contempt application. In support of his contention learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of this Court reported in 1964 ALJ 31, Ramnath Singh v. State ofUttar Pradesh and the decision of the Apex Court reported in (1997) 6 SCC 415, State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. v. M. Natarajan and Anr.. On the strength of the above decision, it was urged that the order of punishment has been passed on total insufficient and non-existent grounds. Let counter-affidavit be filed within six week. List thereafter.";


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