- (1.) THIS writ petition has been, inter alia, filed for the following reliefs; (i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the orders dated 16.10.2004, 22.11.2004 and 15.9.2005 passed by the Respondent No. 3 (As contained in Annexure No. 3, 4, 5 to this petition). (ii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding concerned to make the payment of full backwages viz. the salary and other consequential benefits to the petitioner for a period from 22.11.1996 till 25.10.2004 forthwith.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record. Brief facts of the case are as follows; The petitioner was appointed as a Constable on 1.7.1974. He was found misbehaving under the influence of liqour on 23.9.2006. The petitioner was taken to the hospital where he was medically examined and it was found that he had consumed liqour while on duty. A report to this effect was submitted on 31.10.1996. On the basis of this report dated 31.10.1996, the services of the petitioner was dismissed by an order dated 20.11.1996 exercising the powers under Clause (b) of Sub -rule (2) of the Rule 8 of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The reasons incorporated in the order of termination was that the petitioner, who was a habitual drunkard, after consuming alcohol misbehaved with the public at large and earlier also he was penalized and punished on various occasions for consuming alcohol and creating ugly scenes and and that he was also in the habit of taking unauthorized leave. It was, therefore, held that neither it was possible to hold a departmental inquiry nor it was in public interest to hold such an inquiry. An appeal and a revision preferred by the petitioner against the said orders were also rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a writ petition No. 6483 of 1999 before this Court and this Court while allowing the writ petition by order dated 25.8.2004 had, inter alia, observed as follows; "In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 20 -11 -96, 29 -5 -97 and 22 -6 -99 are quashed and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and with full back wages. It is however open to the disciplinary authority to initiate a departmental inquiry after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner under Rule 8 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1991." In pursuance of the said order, the petitioner was reinstated in service by order dated 16.10.2004 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Saharanpur. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and after the receipt of the reply of the petitioner to the said show cause notice, punishment of censure entry was inflicted on the petitioner. It was followed by an order dated 15.9.2005 whereby the petitioner was granted 51% of the back wages from 20.11.1996 till 16.10.2004, however, during the period under termination of the petitioner, no leave encashment, bonus and additional pay was granted to the petitioner. However, for the purpose of promotion, pension and increment, period during which the petitioner remained under termination was to be taken into consideration.
(3.) BY order dated 16.10.2004, the petitioner was reinstated into services, as such, the petitioner can hardly have any grievance against the said order, therefore, the prayer with respect to the quashing of the order dated 16.10.2004 is misconceived. The order dated 20.11.2004 has also been challenged in the present writ petition whereby the petitioner was awarded censure entry in his character role. As already discussed hereinabove, the petitioner who was a habitual drunkard, use to create ugly scenes, nuisance and misbehaved with the public under the influence of the liquor while in the duty. He was given from time to time several warnings and punishment but he did not make any improvement. Ultimately, the services of the petitioner was terminated for committing the gross misconduct whereby he disreputed the name of police department. The said order was set aside by this Court on technical ground giving opportunity to the police department to initiate fresh inquiry and this time, the department taking a lenient view of the matter, after due inquiry, only recorded a censure entry in his character role. It is also pertinent to note that order dated 22.11.2004, for the first time, has been challenged in the present writ petition after more than seven years and no explanation whatsoever has been given with regard to delay, as such, the prayer of the petitioner cannot be entertained primarily because the petitioner did not challenge the impugned order within time and even otherwise also, this Court does not find any illegality in the orders impugned in the present writ petition.;