- (1.) BHARATI Sapru, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing Counsel for the State.
(2.) THIS is an unusual case. The petitioner was serving as a constable in the civil police since 17-4-1979 when he was appointed. He submitted a letter of resignation on 3-10-1994. The petitioner wrote a letter of resignation expressing his desire to resign from the police service on moral grounds expressing his dis-satisfaction and inability to serve under the then Government policies, which he claims to be ridden with caste prejudices and against the public interest and oppressive. He detailed the police atrocities, which were being committed on the general public including women. The petitioner wrote a letter of resignation, which he put in a closed cover and took to his superior authority. The department took a strong exception to the letter and instead of accepting the letter of resignation as it was, dismissed the petitioner from service invoking the provisions of Rule 8 (2) (b) of the U. P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 read with Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India i. e. to say that the authority concerned dispensed with the departmental enquiry holding that it was not possible to hold an enquiry into the petitioner's matter because it would invoke unrest in the police ranks as the letter of resignation was inflammatory in nature and was tantamount to gross indiscipline. The authority thus passed an order on 6-10-1994 dismissing the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal, which was also dismissed on 31-3-1995. Against the appellate order, the petitioner filed a revision though belatedly and therefore the revision was dismissed as time-barred on 31-3-1996 by the I. G. without going into the matter of merits. The petitioner has come to this Court challenging the impugned orders on the ground that this letter of resignation could not and should not have been treated as an act of indiscipline and also the petitioner has taken a plea that there was no material or evidence before the authority concerned to come to the conclusion that the petitioner had actually indulged in any such act of indiscipline nor there was any reason to invoke the provisions of Section 8 (2) (b) of the Rules aforesaid and dispense thereafter to with the enquiry. The petitioner has pleaded that in fact the impugned orders have lead to grievous prejudice against the petitioner because as a result of the impugned orders, the petitioner has also been denied all service benefits and his retiral benefits as well as the pension, gratuity etc. which he would have been entitled to as he had put in more than 25 years of service and was eligible to receive all those benefits.
(3.) LEARNED standing Counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed this petition and has argued that the petitioner indeed had indulged in gross indiscipline by even submitting such a letter of resignation in which he had openly written and criticized the Government policies as well as the activities of the police department. He has argued that the provisions of Rule 8 (2) (b) of the Rules aforesaid have been correctly invoked in the case of the petitioner and the order passed by the authority concerned was fully justified. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned standing Counsel at length and having also perused the record it is revealed that the petitioner had in fact written a letter of resignation in which he had expressed moral grounds for submitting his letter of resignation. The letter of resignation is also on a record; it is in the nature of a protest. The letter of resignation had been put in a sealed cover and was given to the authority concerned. There is no evidence on record to show that the petitioner had publicized his statement while in service or that he was ever made an attempt to defame the police department publicly. The letter of resignation was a covered communication to the authority and had not been made public by the petitioner while in service.;