- (1.) ANJANI Kumar, J. The petitioner who was working as Constable in U. P. Police filed this writ petition aggrieved by the order dated 15-10-1997 passed by the respondent No. 3, Inspector General of Police, Allahabad Zone, Allahabad approached this Court with the following prayer: " (1) issue a writ, order of direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to produce the order Ashaskiya Patra Sankhya AZ AC-3 Misc. 1997 (102) dated 10-10-97 (which should be 15-10- 1997) passed by respondent No. 3, Inspector General of Police, Allahabad Zone, Allahabad allowing the appeal of the petitioner and direct them to comply with the said order by reinstating the petitioner on the post of Police Constable alongwith all service benefits. (2) Issue any writ, order or direction in the. nature of which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case to meet the end of justice. (3) Award cost of this petition of the petitioner. "
(2.) THE order dated 15-10-1997 passed by the Inspector General of Police, Allahabad Zone, Allahabad has not been annexed along with the writ petition. THE facts, as stated in the writ petition, refer to an order dated 15-10-1997 which is said to have been passed by the Inspector General of Police, Allahabad Zone, Allahabad on a representation made by the petitioner. But in the counter affidavit it is stated that the said order dated 15-10-1997 was passed on a representation made by wife of the petitioner when she appeared before the Inspector General of Police, Allahabad Zone, Allahabad in person. According to the assertion made in the counter affidavit the order dated 15-10-1997 was to the effect that the petitioner should be reinstated in accordance with the rules and further proceedings be completed in accordance with the police regulations. THE counter affidavit further states that no such representation lay under the provisions of relevant service rules. THE facts leading to filing of the aforesaid writ petition are as under: That on 8-7-1985 the petitioner was relieved from Traffic Police Lines with the direction to report for joining at Police Lines Allahabad but the petitioner did not report to the place where he was asked to join and after he was relieved for joining at Police Lines, Allahabad, he remained absent without any information or application for leave for six years, seventy two days and twelve hours, which has been held to be unauthorized absence. The petitioner was served with a charge-sheet and a regular enquiry was conducted against him and thereafter the petitioner was served with a show-cause notice which he received and submitted his explanation to the said show-cause notice on 18-8-1993 which was not accepted by the punishing authority and petitioner was terminated from services. The petitioner challenged the order of termination on the ground that the Superintendent of Police (City), Allahabad has no jurisdiction to terminate his services. Learned counsel for the petitioner tries to make out a case that the petitioner's services were terminated without complying with the principles of natural justice and without holding any enquiry in accordance with service rules. But in the counter affidavit, said fact has been denied and it is stated that the petitioner was afforded full opportunity and enquiry was held in accordance with relevant service rules. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not demonstrate that the enquiry conducted against the petitioner was either in violation of service rules or in any way violative of principles of natural justice. Thereafter as stated above, the petitioner's wife made a representation wherein the aforesaid order dated 15-10-1997 was passed by the Inspector General of Police, Allahabad Zone, Allahabad as stated in the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner place reliance on the decision reported in 1986 (4) SCC 667, Surinder Singh v. Central Government and others and 1999 AWC (4) 3481, Pramod Kumar and others v. Sub-Divisional Officer, Khaga Fatehpur and others. I have gone through these judgments and these judgments do not apply to the present case. It is not disputed that the petitioner remained absent unauthorizedly for over six years and because of that a regular enquiry was conducted in accordance with the relevant service rules and after holding enquiry the petitioner's services were terminated. During the period of unauthorized absence a criminal case was also registered against the petitioner in which he was arrested. The petitioner has admitted this fact in reply to the show cause notice. In these circumstances, even assuming that the Inspector General of Police, Allahabad Zone, Allahabad as alleged in the writ petition, has passed the order dated 15-10-1997 since it does not set aside the order of termination of the petitioner nor does it direct otherwise, except that the petitioner should be reinstated in accordance with law. The relevant service rule demonstrates that the petitioner could not have been reinstated.
(3.) IN these circumstances, the mandamus sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted and it is also not established that the respondents are under any statutory obligation to reinstate the petitioner and pay his arrears as alleged in the writ petition. In this view of the matter, no case for issuance of mandamus is made out. No other prayer is made, no other point is argued. In the result, writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed. .;