- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the 8 parties.
(2.) PETITIONER was appointed as police constable in the year 1986. On 01.05.2005 petitioner was suspended by Commandant 37 B P.A.C. Battalion, Kanpur. Suspension order is Annexure 1 to the writ petition. It states that disciplinary proceedings against the pe titioner are contemplated on the charge of mis-behaviour with the Commandant on 1-5-2005 during monthly Sainik Sammellan. Sus pension Order was passed under Rule 17(1) of Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Sub ordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. After two days i.e. on 3-5-2005 dismissal order was passed by the Comman dant under Rule 8(2)(b) of the above Rules. The said order runs into 11 pages and in para 8 it records that as the incident occurred in the presence of the Commandant (Appoint ing authority who passed the termination or der) hence there was no need of holding any inquiry. No charge sheet etc. was issued and no inquiry worth its name was held before passing dismissal order. Appeal against the said order was filed which was dismissed by D.I.G. P.A.C., Kanpur on 24-5-2005. Said or der is Annexure 3 to the writ petition. Both the orders have been challenged through this writ petition. In the dismissal order dated 3-5-2005 it is mentioned that during monthly Sainik Sammelan the petitioner stood up and insult ingly asked that he had made complaint lev elling charges of corruption against Ram Baran Singh, Company Commander through registered post and why action had not been taken thereupon till then. The incident took place in the presence of the Commandant who subsequently passed the dismissal order. It has further been stated that the Commandant told him that only 10 or 11 days had passed since receipt of his complaint and matter was be ing enquired and that such matters should not be raised in open Sainik Sammelan and Sainik Sammelans were meant only for ventilating the own grievances and that such type of dis cussion in the open Sammelan could jeopar dize the enquiry and humiliate the person against whom petitioner had levelled the charges. It has further been mentioned that in spite of the suggestion/warning the petitioner continued to assert that he should be told that why action was not taken against Ram Baran Singh who was in the same Company i.e. F Company. It has also been mentioned that the officer who had been deputed to enquire the matter against Ram Baran Singh was away on duty of 8 days hence he was seized of the matter only for 3 or 4 days. It has also been mentioned that Ram Baran Singh had also filed complaint against the petitioner. In the impugned order it has also been mentioned that during 2002-03 petitioner was transferred to 3 companies due to his misbehaviour i.e. C,H and F Companies. It has also been mentioned that on several oc casions (4 or 5) petitioner called in the or derly room and was warned for his misbehaviour and misconduct and counsel ling was done and at every occasion petitioner ensured that he would be careful in future but still he repeated same types of misbehaviour with his colleagues and the superiors. It has also been mentioned in the dismissal order that on perusal of service record of the peti tioner it was found that he was awarded cen sure entry on 23-5-94 for misbehaving and abusing with mess Manager. Similarly in the year 1986 he had misbehaved with Sri Subhash Gupta P.C. hence on 25.09.1996 he was awarded censure entry. In the same year i.e. 1996 petitioner was charged with attempt to kill his colleague Tilak Dhari Pal. How ever, other persons separated both of them. During that incident he had misbehaved with Sri Subhash Gupta. Similarly on 27.03.1998 he was awarded censure entry as he had mis behaved and abused his another colleague Abdul Jahir Khan. On 15-4-1998 also he was awarded minor punishment of fixing his sal ary in lower pay scale for six months. It was done due to the reason that on 25-6-1997 while posted at Allahabad Police Lines as Guard Commander he was not ready on time. Similarly censure entries were awarded on 6-3-99 and 22-9-2000 against the petitioner for his misbehaviour with some employees. He was also awarded minor punishment once in 2001 and twice in 2000. It was also mentioned that on 26-4-2005 when petitioner was posted at Lakhimpur, he was charged with cutting a Shisham tree and bringing the wood at his home. Report was submitted on 26-4-2005 and inquiry in that regard was pending.
(3.) IN this manner there were eight censure entries and three minor penalties against the petitioner. IN the dismissal order it is men tioned that in spite of so many censure en tries and minor punishments petitioner had not improved himself. He was always quar relling with his officer and with his colleagues and assaulting them. It was also mentioned that higher authorities had directed that peti tioner should be kept under watch through order dated 20-8-2004, hence his personal file had been opened. Commandant who passed the dismissal order also mentioned that even though he had given detailed suggestion and warned the petitioner on three occasions in orderly room to improve his conduct but he did not do so and he misbehaved on 1-5-2005 in monthly Sainik Sammelan in the presence of Officers and employees which affected the constables and other employees. It was also observed that P.A.C. being disciplined force such thing could not be condoned and con tinuance of petitioner in service could lead to some grave incident. Accordingly, it was con cluded that there was no occasion to hold departmental inquiry and it was not feasible and not necessary. Accordingly dismissal or der was passed. Main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner hence dismissal order is bad.;