Dilip B. Bhosale, CJ - (1.) The order of reference dated 28 July 2016, which has occasioned the constitution of this Full Bench, has been passed by a Division Bench in the instant special appeal having found itself unable to accept the correctness of the view taken by another Division Bench of this Court in State of U.P. & Anr. v. Anil Kumar Bharti, Special Appeal Defective No. 302 of 2015 (decided on 28 May 2015) . The questions as formulated by the Division Bench for our consideration, read thus: (a) Which of the law laid down in the case of Krishna Murari (supra) or law laid down in the case of State of U.P. and others v. Anil Kumar Bharti is the correct law. (b) Whether in respect of departmental proceeding to be initiated against the inferior staff (Group-D staff) working in U.P. Police, the procedure as laid down under the Rules 1999 will apply or the provisions of the Rule, 1991 would be applicable.
(2.) The Division Bench which decided Anil Kumar Bharti rested its judgment on the dictum laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Home & Ors. v. Rajendra Singh Anr., AIR 2016 Alld 100 . While formulating the questions for our consideration, the Division Bench made the following observations: We find that the subsequent division Bench has drawn analogy from the law as declared by the Full Bench in the case of Rajendra Singh (supra) which was not directly on the issue regarding applicability of the statutory provisions in the matter of holding of departmental inquiry against the inferior police officers namely (Group-D) employees of the police force. The division bench in the case of Krishna Murari (supra) after referring to the provisions of Rules, 1991 has specifically held that the inferior Police Officer had not been included within the framework of the said Rules, 1991 and, therefore, the Rules, 1999 would apply to them. This aspect of the matter was not under consideration before the Full bench in the case of Rajendra Singh (Supra).
(3.) Before proceeding to the merits of the reference made, it would be relevant to note the background facts in which the special appeal travelled to the Division Bench. The respondent sought quashing of an order dated 18 April 2013 in terms of which a penalty of non-payment of salary for twelve days and a fine equivalent to five days of salary came to be imposed upon him. The main submission which appears to have been advanced before the learned Single Judge was that although the departmental proceedings were initiated under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short, 'Rules, 1991'), the petitioner-respondent could have been proceeded against only in accordance with the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for short, 'Rules, 1999'). The learned Single Judge, relying upon the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Krishna Murari v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2012) 93 ALR 647 , accepted the above submission and consequently quashed the orders impugned in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge, however, granted liberty to the appellants to proceed against the petitioner-respondent in terms of the Rules, 1999. Before the Division Bench which has made the present reference, it was pointed out that the judgment in Krishna Murari had been duly noticed in Anil Kumar Bharti, wherein the Division Bench clearly held that the said judgment would fall foul of the position of law as enunciated by the Full Bench of the Court in Rajendra Singh. The State sought to draw sustenance from the fact that since Krishna Murari had been duly taken note of and had been held as no longer good law, the learned Single Judge had clearly erred in allowing the writ petition of the petitioner-respondent. In appeal, the Division Bench has doubted the correctness of Anil Kumar Bharti and the two learned Judges were of the view that the judgment of the Full Bench in Rajendra Singh had no application. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the instant reference came to be made to the present Full Bench. ;