- (1.) The appellant was posted as Assistant Sub Inspector in the office of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad. A disciplinary enquiry was held against the appellant on the ground that he had contracted a marriage during the subsistence of a previous marriage. An order of dismissal was passed against the appellant on 14 September 2006 which was confirmed in appeal on 10 January 2007 and in revision on 29 December 2011. These proceedings had been initiated against the appellant under the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991(Rules). The appellant filed a claim petition before the State Public Services Tribunal(Tribuna). The Tribunal by its judgment dated 22 September 2014 held that the departmental proceedings had not been conducted in accordance with the Rules, since the appellant had not been furnished with relevant documentary material. Consequently, the order of the Tribunal set aside the order of termination as well as the appellate and revisional orders. However, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that it was not necessary to reinstate the appellant. The State was directed to initiate a fresh enquiry from the stage of serving a charge sheet after furnishing to the appellant all relevant documentary evidence relied upon in support thereof.
(2.) The appellant filed a writ petition before this Court(Writ-A No 49180 of 2015) in which his grievance was that once the Tribunal had held that the disciplinary proceeding was vitiated on the ground of a defect, the proper course of action was to remit the matter back for a fresh enquiry from the stage from where the defect was found and, in the meantime, to place the employee under suspension. In this regard, the appellant relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs Y S Sadhu, Ex-Inspector, 2008 12 SCC 30 which, in turn, followed the judgment of a Constitution Bench in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad Vs B Karunakar, 1993 4 SCC 727. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by directing that since the appellant had made a representation, it may be considered expeditiously within six weeks. Following this direction, the Deputy Inspector General of Police passed an order on 29 November 2015 rejecting the representation. The order rejecting the representation holds that since the Tribunal had specifically not granted the relief of reinstatement to the appellant, there was no occasion for the State to do so.
(3.) The appellant filed a writ petition(Writ-A No 69731 of 2015) in order to challenge the order dated 29 November 2015 and sought a direction to the effect that he should be placed under suspension and be paid subsistence allowance. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by an order dated 5 January 2016 on the ground that the order of the Tribunal was not challenged before the High Court and the Tribunal had issued a direction not to reinstate the appellant, which is still subsisting. The appellant, aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 5 January 2016, is in special appeal.;