Shishir Kumar, J. - (1.) By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has approached this Court for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 26.10.2002, 1.5.2002 and 3.12,2001 passed by the respondents Nos 1, 2 and 3 respectively. Further issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents from interfering in the working of the petitioner on the basis of impugned orders.
(2.) The facts arising out of the writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Sub Inspector of Police in the year 1984 and since then he is discharging his duties faithfully. There was no complaint regarding work and conduct of the petitioner. While the petitioner was posted in District Rampur, an application was submitted by one Km Rana Rais before Inspector General of Police, Bareilly Zone, Bareilly making certain false and frivolous allegations against the petitioner and asserting that the petitioner after promising her to marry has resiled from his promise. A copy of the same Has been filed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition A preliminary enquiry was conducted by Circle Officer. Bilaspur, District Rampur, who submitted his enquiry report on 5.7.1999 exonerating the petitioner from the aforesaid charge. The Superintendent of Police vide its letters dated 12.8.1999 and 23.12.1999 addressed to Deputy Inspector General of Police in armed him that the charges levelled against the petitioner by Km. Rana Rais have been found to be false by the enquiry officer. Km. Rana Rais then again on 8.1,2001 directly submitted an application before the Inspector General of Police Bareilly. An order-dated 3.2.2001 was passed directing the Superintendent of Police to submit his comments regarding conduct of the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the U.P. Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as Conduct Rules, 1956). In compliance of the aforesaid order, the circle officer Bilaspur sent a letter dated 3.3.2001 stating therein that he had overlooked the conduct of the petitioner in the light of the provisions of Conduct Rules, 1956. By order dated 12,3,2001, passed by the Superintendent of Police directing the petitioner to show cause as to why an entry of censure be not made in his character roll for committing breach of Conduct Rules, 1956. However, by order dated 27.3.2001, the Inspector General of Police directed the Superintendent of Police, Rampur to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of Rule 14(1) of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal ) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to 1991 Rules). On receipt of the aforesaid order dated 19.5.2001, the Superintendent of Police, Rampur recalled the earlier show cause notice dated 12.3.2001 and appointed Additional Superintendent of Police as an enquiry officer.
(3.) A charge sheet dated 10.6.2001 was served upon the petitioner by enquiry officer and time was granted till 19.6.2001 to submit his reply. From the perusal of the aforesaid charge sheet indicates that only one charge was levelled against the petitioner namely that in the year 1991, while he was posted as Sub Inspector he had a love affair with Km. Rana Rais in spite of the fact that he was married, which constituted an offence under Rule 28 of the Conduct Rules, 1956. An application was submitted by the petitioner for being supplied certain documents, which were, however, supplied to him only on 6.7.2001. An application was thereafter submitted by the petitioner on 10,7,2001 seeking 30 days time to the petitioner for filing his reply to the aforesaid charge sheet. However, only three days time was granted to the petitioner by the Enquiry Officer. On 21.7.2001, an application was submitted by the petitioner before the Enquiry Officer stating therein that the provisions of Rule 28 of the Conduct Rules 1956 are not applicable keeping in view of the nature of the charges levelled against him and so he may be informed accordingly so as to enable him to submit a proper reply. It has also been stated that the enquiry officer vide letter dated 21.7.2001 had fixed 23.7.2001 for recording the statement of Km. Rana Rais, but however, the statement of the said lady was recorded on 22.7.2001 i.e. one day prior to the date fixed. The statement was recorded ex parte behind the back of the petitioner. Subsequently on continuation of the aforesaid statement another statement was recorded on 23.7.2001. The petitioner categorically asserts that he had no notice of postponing the enquiry proceeding or of the recording of the statement of Km. Rana Rais on 22.7.2001. On 9.5.2001 the petitioner was transferred to Meerut zone from Rampur, as such, an application dated 22.7.2001 was moved before the competent authority seeking transfer of the enquiry proceeding. It has also been asserted in the said application that the petitioner does not expect a proper enquiry from the enquiry officer on account of bias and malafides. A copy of the said application dated 22.7.2001 has been filed as Annexure 12 to the writ petition. Realizing the provisions of Rules 28 of the Conduct Rules 1956 were not applicable, an amended charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 24.7.2001. From the perusal of the aforesaid charge sheet it indicates that now the charge, which has been levelled against the petitioner, was in violation of Rule 4(1) of U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. Since the petitioner had fallen ill and cannot recovered from his illness, as such, he could not participate in the enquiry proceedings and ultimately an exparte enquiry report was submitted by the enquiry officer on 21.8.2001.;