- (1.) M. M. Ghildiyal, J. Heard Sri P. S. Adhikari, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel who accepts notices for the respondents.
(2.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 3-9-2003 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Pithoragarh and order dated 14th February, 2004 passed by the Inspector General of Police, Kumaon Region, Nainital. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was Head Constable in the Police Department and at the relevant time was posted at Police Lines, Pithoragarh. The petitioner was residing in Government accommodation allotted to him in Police Lines, Pithoragarh, alongwith his wife Smt. Saraswati Devi, a daughter aged about 11 years and a son aged about 10 years. The mother of the petitioner was living at Udham Singh Nagar as she belongs to Udham Singh Nagar. Since the petitioner was serving in Pithoragarh District for more than last 13 years, his wife was not interested to go elsewhere; whereas the petitioner wanted to be transferred to Udham Singh Nagar to look after her old mother where she was residing. This cause developed dispute between the petitioner and his wife. The dispute developed to extent that the petitioner had filed a petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act for divorce. The respondent No. 5, Reserve Inspector, Police Lines, Pithoragarh also avails from the same village to which the wife of the petitioner belongs and he has been supporting the cause of petitioner's wife with the result neither the petitioner is being granted leave nor his application for transfer is being forwarded to the authorities by the respondent No. 5 and on the intervention of respondent No. 5, the Superintendent of Police, Pithoragarh has passed order deducting Rs. 2,300/-from the salary of the petitioner to be paid to his wife. The petitioner was so much harassed that he was compelled to submit his resignation from his services on 29-8-2003 with a condition that either he may be transferred to any other place or his resignation may be accepted. However, the authorities rejected the resignation of petitioner vide order dated 1-9-2003 and at the same time have not passed any order for transfer of the petitioner. In the night of 1-9-2003, when the petitioner was in Guard Command Duty at Police Lines, Pithoragarh, a complaint was made by his wife to respondent No. 5, telephonically that the petitioner entered to his quarter at 10. 00 p. m. bearing his own service rifle and 30 cartridges, broken the house glasses, abusing his wife, threatening his wife as also the residents of the locality. Treating the act of petitioner as a threat to the peace to the Police Force as also to the residents, the Deputy Superintendent of Police was directed to make inquiry on 2-9-2003 who on the same evening i. e. , on 2- 9-2003 after making inquiry; submitted its report to the Superintendent of Police, Pithoragarh and on 3- 9-2003 impugned dismissal order of petitioner was passed by the Superintendent of Police, Pithoragarh. Against the dismissal order dated 3-9-2003, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Inspector General of Police who also rejected the appeal vide its order dated 14-2-2004 which are the orders impugned in the present writ petition.
(3.) THE petitioner has assailed the impugned orders on various grounds. Firstly, since the Reserve Inspector is the resident of the same village to which petitioner's wife belongs, has been supporting the cause of petitioner's wife. Not only this, he has manipulated in not granting leaves to the petitioner, he indulged in rejecting the resignation letter of the petitioner and making complaint on fictitious allegations in respect of the incident which said to have been place in the night of 1-9-2003. THE action taken by the respondents is mala fide. Submission of the petitioner is that he had to gone his quarter and since there was a dispute between the petitioner and his wife, hence false allegations have been made against the petitioner alleging that he threatened his wife and his neighbours. I do not find force in the submission made by learned Counsel for the petitioner. THE respondent No. 5 who is Reserve Inspector at Police Lines, Pithoragarh may belong to the village of petitioner's wife but this lone fact will not substantiate the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the action taken by the respondents against the petitioner is mala fide. A preliminary inquiry has been conducted by the Dy. S. P. punishment order has been passed by the S. P. and the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected by the I. G. Police, but no allegations have been levelled against them. The second ground on which the impugned orders have been attacked is that prior to passing of the dismissal order of the petitioner from service, no full-fledged enquiry was conducted. The impugned order has been passed under the Provision of Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. Rule 4 of the aforesaid Rules provide for punishment which is quoted as under : "4. Punishment.- (1) The following punishments may, for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided, be imposed upon a Police Officer, namely : (a) Major Penalties - (i) Dismissal from service; (ii) Removal from service; (iii) Reduction in rank including reduction to a lower-scale or to a lower stage in a time scale. (b) Minor Penalties - (i) Withholding of promotion; (ii) Fine not exceeding one months' pay; (iii) Withholding of increment, including stoppage at an efficiency bar; (iv) Censure. (2) In addition to the punishments mentioned in sub-rule (1) Head Constables and Constables may also be inflicted with the following punishments - (i) Confinement to quarters (this term includes confinement to Quarter Guard for a term not exceeding fifteen days extra guard or other duty); (ii) Punishment Drill not exceeding fifteen days; (iii) Extra guard duty not exceeding seven days; (iv) Deprivation of good conduct pay. (3) In addition to the punishments mentioned in sub-rules (1) and (2) Constables may also be punished with Fatigue duty, which shall be restricted to the following tasks : (i) Tent pitching; (ii) Drain Digging; (iii) Cutting grass, cleaning jungle and picking stones from parade grounds; (iv) Repairing huts and butts and similar work in the lines; (v) Cleaning Arms. ";