Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) The petitioners have called into question orders dated 16.12.2013, 14.2.2015 and 31.8.2015 passed against them in course of disciplinary enquiry. By order dated 16.12.2013 the Superintendent of Police, Fatehpur, while acting as disciplinary authority, inflicted minor penalty of censure entry under Rule 4(1)(b)(iv) of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). The said order was upheld in appeal by order dated 14.2.2015 and in revision by order dated 31.8.2015.
(2.) The petitioners are constables in civil police. While they were posted at Sessions Court, Fatehpur for lock-up duty, a prisoner Uttam Singh Chauhan escaped from police custody on 16.9.2013. The Reserve Inspector, Police Line, Fatehpur conducted preliminary enquiry. He reported that as per entry in General Diary vide Rapat no.8 Time : 11:55 hours, accused Uttam Singh was sent to Court No.12 for Peshi alongwith constable Vinay Singh. According to the statement of court moharrir, he went to police lock-up at 12:45 hours to call Uttam Singh for peshi but came to know that he had already been sent to court alongwith constable Vinay Singh at 11:55 hours. He also stated that the accused was produced before the court at 13:20 hours and after about 10-15 minutes he returned to the police lock-up and handed over warrants to Pradeep Singh, petitioner no.2 but the lock-up incharge Ram Vansh Dube and other police personnel did not enquire about his whereabouts in time nor searched for him. It was only at about 17:45 hours that information was given to the higher officials on mobile phone about the accused running away from the police custody. On 4.9.2013, S.I. AP Gorakhnath, during routine check up of the lock-up, issued instruction for exercising extra caution in respect of prisoner Uttam Singh, which was however, not followed. Based on his report, the petitioners were subjected to disciplinary proceedings. The charge against the petitioners was to the following effect :- ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]...
(3.) However, the enquiry officer found the petitioners guilty, not of the charge levelled against them, but of not following the instructions issued by S.I. Gorakhnath at the time of inspection on 4.9.2013. Based on the said report, the petitioners were punished.;