Sudhir Agarwal - (1.) -Heard Sri Vijay Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents.
(2.) SINCE counter and rejoinder-affidavits have already been exchanged between the parties, as requested and agreed by the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally under the Rules of the Court and is being decided at this stage. Aggrieved by the order dated 26.5.2004, passed by Inspector General of Police, Allahabad Zone, Allahabad modifying punishment imposed upon the petitioner by converting dismissal from service to reduction in the pay scale at the minimum for a period of three years and denying arrears of salary for the period petitioner was under suspension and out of employment pursuant to dismissal order dated 2.5.1994, this writ petition has been filed seeking writ of certiorari quashing the same and also a writ of mandamus directing respondents to pay all the benefits to the petitioners as he was never suspended. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order of punishment has been passed without considering the fact that the enquiry proceedings were conducted ex parte, the petitioner was not deliberately absent since he was ill and has submitted various medical certificates, therefore, it was not a case of unauthorized absence and, as such, there was no misconduct on the part of the petitioner inviting any punishment. He further contended that the impugned order, to the extent the petitioner has been denied arrears of salary during the period he was under suspension and out of employment, is vitiated for non-compliance of Fundamental Rule 54 since no notice was issued to the petitioner under the aforesaid provision.
(3.) LEARNED standing counsel, on the other contrary, placed reliance on the stand taken in the counter-affidavit and submitted that entire proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and, therefore, no interference is warranted in this writ petition. From the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find that basically he has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds : (1) The enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer is pursuant to an ex parte enquiry without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, therefore, is vitiated in law. (2) The procedure laid down in Rule 14 (1) of U. P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as '1991 Rules') has not been followed rendering the entire proceedings void ab-initio. (3) Before passing order of dismissal, the disciplinary authority, i.e., respondent No. 4 has not afforded any opportunity to the petitioner and, therefore, it is bad in law. (4) While deciding the appeal of the petitioner, various grounds raised by him have not been considered and, therefore, the appellate order is non-speaking. (5) The punishment imposed upon the petitioner is excessive, arbitrary and does not commensurate to the alleged misconduct. (6) The proceedings are result of mala fide of the then Superintendent of Police, Banda, whose wife contested election from Etawah and the petitioner's Geep which is owned by the wife of petitioner was used in the said election, but no rent was paid and when the petitioner demanded, he was misbehaved, abused and a false report was also lodged against him on 9.7.1993. (7) The revisional authority though modified the punishment by reduction in the pay scale, but even that punishment does not commensurate to the alleged misconduct. (8) The order for denying salary during the period the petitioner was under suspension and out of employment pursuant to the dismissal order, which was modified by the revisional order, has not been passed in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Fundamental Rule 54. ;