Surendra Vikram Singh Rathore, J. - (1.) BY means of this petition, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 31.8.2006 passed by DIG, Devi Patan respondent No. 3 and also the order dated 28.6.2006 passed by Superintendant of Police Bahraich, opposite party No. 2.
(2.) IN brief, the facts giving rise to this petition may be summed up as under: A case under sections 219,223,224,225 Kha,419,420,468,422 and 120B IPC was registered against the petitioner at case Crime No. 1266 of 2003 P.S. Kotwali Bahraich as two accused persons succeeded in fleeing away from the judicial custody while they were being taken from the Lockup to the court concerned. This incident is alleged to have taken place on 13.10.2003. The petitioner was, in -charge of the lock -up at the relevant time. A departmental inquiry was also initiated against him. In the trial for the criminal offence, the petitioner was discharged from the court of additional chief judicial Magistrate, Bahraich vide order dated 31.8.2004 passed in case No. 167 of 2004 State Vs. Ram Dev and others. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, criminal revision was filed by the State Government of U.P. before the Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 28.6.2005 passed in criminal revision No. 510 of 2005, State of U.P. Vs. Sharda Prasad Verma dismissed the revision filed on behalf of the State. Admittedly the said order passed by the Sessions Judge was not challenged in any court. In the departmental inquiry, which was conducted by the C.O Sisvan he was held responsible for the negligence. Therefore, on the quantum of punishment a notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner inter -alia defended himself on the ground that he has been discharged of the criminal offence, therefore, in view of the Para 493 (c) of the U.P. Police Regulations(hereinafter referred to as Regulation), no further action can be taken against him. By the impugned order, dated 28.6.2006, the explanation submitted by the petitioner was rejected and he was punished by reversion to the lowest scale of the constable for a period of three years. A departmental appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the DIG, Devi Patan and the defence of the petitioner was again on the same ground but the appellate authority also dismissed his appeal and confirmed the punishment.
(3.) FEELING aggrieved by the two orders, passed by respondents No. 2 and 3, the present writ petition was filed on the ground that the orders passed by the respondents are in violation of the provision of Para 493 (c) of the Regulations.;