- (1.) RAKESH Tiwari, J. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. The petitioners were appointed as a Police Constable. They were placed under suspension by order dated 10-2-1999. The petitioner had also filed a writ petition No. 39590 of 1999, which was disposed off by this Court by order dated 15-9-1999 with the observation that in case the charge sheet submitted against the petitioners the departmental enquiry would remain in abeyance. By means of this petition a prayer for quashing the suspension order passed on 10-2-1999 in contemplation of the departmental enquiry has been made.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case leading to the suspension of the petitioner are that they were posted as constable in Police Line, Agra and were given duty of producing accused persons before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly. After producing the accused persons, the petitioners were coming back by train to Agra from Bareilly with the accused. It is alleged that the accused persons jumped from the running train and escaped from the custody of the petitioners. Thereafter, petitioner No. 2 Hari Mohan Gaur lodged an F. I. R. in Police Station Rakabganj, District Agra on 9-2-1999 and a case under Section 224 I. P. C. was registered against the petitioners. They were suspended by the aforesaid impugned order dated 10-2-1999. The petitioners surrendered themselves before the Criminal Court and were release on bail. A charge-sheet-dated 13-8- 1999 was issued to them and departmental proceedings were initiated. They filed a writ petition No. 39590 of 2000, Hari Mohan Gaur and others v. State of U. P. and others, which was disposed off by order dated 15-9-1999. The relevant operative portion is as under: "the writ petition is finally disposed of with the direction that for the time being the departmental proceedings against the petitioners shall remain stayed for a period of one month, though the petitioners shall remain under suspension. In case a charge sheet is submitted in the criminal case against the petitioners, the departmental enquiry shall not take place till criminal trial is brought to a logical conclusion. If, however, no charge sheet is submitted against the petitioners and final report is submitted against them, in that even the departmental proceedings shall go on. Date 15-9-1999 Sd/ O. P. Garg, J. . . . . " This petition has been filed on the ground that criminal charge sheet has been submitted in the Criminal Court and a criminal case will take more time for disposal and as such the impugned order of suspension will cause great loss to the applicants and is liable to quashed. The other ground is that the petitioner's request for increases of subsistence allowances though this Court has stayed the departmental enquiry proceedings and lastly that the order of suspension is liable to be quashed. It is also averred that the petitioner No. 2 Hari Mohan Gaur will retire from service on 31-7-2001 and as such departmental proceedings cannot be continued against him and that after his retirement, the respondents are bound to pay all the dues to him in view of judgment of the apex Court AIR 1999 SC 1841, Bhagirathi Jena v. Board of Directors OSFC and others.
(3.) IT is contended under Rule 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Pension Ke Mamlon Ki (Prastutikaran, Nistaran Aur Bilamb Ka Pariverjan) Niyamawali 1995 provides that the pension papers will be provided to the Government Servant before 8 (eight) months from the date of retirement and all the formalities will be completed before the date of retirement. He further stated that the Government Order dated 5-7-1997 the preparation of the pension papers must be started before two years from the dated of retirement of the Government Servants. Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the state inter alia stating that police force is a disciplined force and the respondent failed to discharge their duty with utmost responsibility.;