Sanjay Misra, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri D.S.P. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. The petitioner has challenged two orders dated 19.12.2000 (contained in Annexures -9 and 10 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 1 giving adverse entry to the petitioner and for the recovery of Rs. 810/ - from the petitioner. The appellate order dated 12.2.2001 (contained in Annexure -14 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 2 whereby the appeal of the petitioner has been rejected. An order dated 12.4.2001 (contained in Annexure -14 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 1 has also been challenged whereby it has been ordered that the suspension allowance paid to the petitioner during suspension period shall be considered as his salary and necessary correction as consequence thereof shall be made for the purpose of pension, promotion, increment etc.
(2.) IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as constable in U.P. Police in the year 1975 and was subsequently given promotion as a head constable. At the relevant period, the petitioner was posted as incharge of Sadar Malkhana, Gorakhpur. It is alleged that a theft took place in the Malkhana and the petitioner lodged an FIR dated 1.3.2000. A true copy of the FIR has been filed as Annexure -1 to the writ petition which indicates that the said FIR was lodged at 3.20 p.m. by post. On a report dated 1.3.2000 of the Assistant Superintendent of Police the petitioner was suspended on the same date and a notice dated 4.3.2000 was served upon him to face a preliminary enquiry. Another show cause notice dated 28.8.2000 was served on the petitioner with respect to the proposed adverse entry. Yet another show cause notice dated 7.9.2000 was served on the petitioner for the proposed recovery of Rs. 810/ - from the petitioner. The petitioner alleges to have given his reply dated 21.9.2000 to both the show cause notices. It is contended that two orders dated 19.12.2000 were passed against the petitioner. The case set up by the petitioner is that impugned orders have been passed without any opportunity of hearing to him and the same are based on presumption. The petitioner was not charge -sheeted nor he was informed about the evidence to be relied upon against him. The petitioner contends that he filed two appeals against the said orders and the appellate authority has also ignored the grounds taken by the petitioner in the memo of appeals and has passed the order illegally. A counter -affidavit has been filed wherein it has been stated that the petitioner was given full opportunity of hearing whereafter the preliminary enquiry report was made. It is contended that the adverse entry has been given to the petitioner in accordance with procedure prescribed in the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1998 and the procedure prescribed in Rule 14(2) has been complied with. The petitioner was given opportunity to inspect the files and he did so on 16.9.2000. Alongwith counter -affidavit, the order dated 12.2.2001 has been filed whereby the petitioner's appeal against the order for recovery of Rs. 810/ - has been rejected by the respondent No. 2. Annexure -CA -2 is a report of the Assistant Superintendent of Police/Circle Officer, Gorakhpur dated 27.3.2000 which indicates that a preliminary enquiry was held and a recommendation was made for awarding adverse entry to the petitioner and recovery of Rs. 810/ - from the salary of the petitioner.
(3.) IN the rejoinder affidavit the petitioner has denied the averments of the counter -affidavit and re -iterated that he was not given any opportunity to face the enquiry and that the petitioner has been awarded four punishments for one alleged charge. It is stated that a sum of Rs. 810/ - has been ordered to be recovered from the petitioner's salary, an adverse entry has been given to the petitioner, only suspension allowance has been paid for the period of suspension and the pension, promotion, increment etc. of the petitioner have been adversely affected. It is contended that no evidence was taken by the Inquiry Officer although the petitioner had asked for taking opinion of finger print expert etc.;