- (1.) This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by a Sub-Inspector (Special Grade) against the order dated 29th January, 2009, whereby he has been dismissed from service on the ground of negligence in his duty as two prisoners escaped from the police custody, and orders dated 03rd February, 2010 and 27th November, 2010 whereby his statutory appeal and revision respectively have also been dismissed.
(2.) A brief reference to the factual aspect would suffice. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Constable in Civil Police in the year 1977. He earned his promotion on the post of Head Constable in 1992. On the basis of his satisfactory service, he was further promoted as Sub-Inspector (Special Grade) in 2007. In the year 2008 he was posted in District Firozabad. On 11th April, 2008 the petitioner along with Head Constable Horam Singh; Constables Khajan Singh, Jaiveer Singh, Gazendra Singh and Lal Singh; and Constable Driver Dashrath Singh were deputed for producing six prisoners, namely, Lala, Rakesh alias Lohare, Parveen, Mangal Singh, B.D.O. alias Rajan Singh and Anil Sharma in the Court. Out of six prisoners, two prisoners, namely, Rakesh alias Lohare and Lala escaped from the police van while it was stationed in the Court premises. With regard to the said incident a first information report was lodged on the same day i.e. 11th April, 2008 at Police Station New Agra. The petitioner was placed under suspension by the Superintendent of Police, Firozabad, the fourth respondent, on the same day on the allegation that the aforesaid two prisoners escaped from the policy custody. On the basis of a preliminary enquiry report dated 30th June, 2008 a charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner on 21st July, 2008. The only allegation in the charge-sheet was that due to negligence of the petitioner two prisoners successfully escaped from the custody of the police. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the charge-sheet. The reply filed by the petitioner is on the record as annexure-6 to the writ petition. In the enquiry, the department produced nine witnesses, who were cross-examined by the petitioner.
(3.) On 11th December, 2008 a communication was issued by the Enquiry Officer to the petitioner to the effect that he may submit the names of the witnesses and his explanation within a week. In response to the said letter, the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation/reply on 18th December, 2008. In the said reply he has also mentioned the names of his defence witnesses and seven documentary evidences to indicate that he was not guilty of the charges levelled against him. He submitted an application for providing him copy of the statements of some of the witnesses and also submitted an application for extension of time to submit the reply. On 19th December, 2008, just after one day, the Enquiry Officer directed the petitioner to appear before him on 22nd December, 2008 i.e. three days' time was granted to the petitioner.;