- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the order of punishment dated 02.08.2008, whereby he has been dismissed from service in exercise of power provided under U.P. Subordinate Police Officers/ Employees Punishment and Appeals Rules, 1991 as also the order dated 17.11.2008 passed in appeal upholding the order of punishment and the order dated 18.12.2011, whereby the petitioner's representation to reconsider the order of punishment has been rejected. The main grounds for challenge is that punishment is harsh as it is not commensurate to the charges levelled against the petitioner.
(3.) ONE Smt. Geeta alias Ahilya Devi claiming herself as wife of the petitioner filed a Suit for divorce in the Court of Senior Judge, Family Court, Gorakhpur, which was numbered as Suit No. 296 of 2010. The Family Court, passed the judgment on 31.03.2011, on the basis of compromise. It is stated that petitioner has been acquitted in Trial No. 1223 of 2006 for the same charges which was levelled against the petitioner in the departmental proceeding, as the prosecution failed to establish the same. It is further stated that para 492 of the U.P. Police Regulations specifically provides that when ever the Police Officer has been judicially tried the Superintendent must await the decision of the judicial appeal, if any before deciding, whether further departmental action is necessary. Regulation 493 of the U.P. Police Regulations provides that it will not be permissible for the Superintendent of Police in the course of departmental proceeding against the Police Officer who has been tried judicially to re -examine the truth of any facts in issue at his judicial trial and the finding of the Court on these facts must be taken as final.;