Court No. - 30
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 28515 of 2015 Petitioner :- Amar Pal Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Gautam Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rajesh Yadav
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Heard Sri Vijay Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Shivi Mishra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
Present petition has been filed with the following prayer:-
"a) Issue, a writ, order or direction, in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the impugned Dismissal order dated 19/5/2014, Appellate order dated 7/10/2014, and Revisional order dated 23/1/2015, passed by the Respondent no. 4, 3 & 2.
b) issue, a writ, order or direction, in the nature of mandamus, directing the Respondent Authorities, to reinstate the services of the petitioner and to pay regular salary and accordingly pay all the consequential benefits.
c) issue, a writ, order, or direction, in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondents, to pay all the arrears of the salary, since the punishment awarded the dismissal from services and accordingly pay all the consequential benefits to the petitioner.
d) ......
(e) "
At the very outset, Sri Gautam has pointed out that the petition filed with identical prayer by the co-accused involved in the incident namely Amit Kumar has approached this Court by filing Writ A No. 28520 of 2015 (Amit Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others) challenging the orders of the same date passed by the authorities concerned. The aforesaid petition was allowed by the judgment and order dated 2.11.2016. Aforesaid order dated 2.11.2.106 is quoted as under:-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following relief:
"a. Issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned dismissal order dated 19.5.2014, appellate order dated 7.10.2014 and revisional order dated 24.1.2015 passed by respondent no. 4, 3 & 2.
b. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to reinstate the services of the petitioner and to pay regular salary and accordingly pay all the consequential benefits.
c. Issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay all the arrears of the salary since the punishment awarded the dismissal from services and accordingly pay all the consequential benefits to the petitioner.
d. ...
e "
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner's services have been terminated without following the procedure of holding an inquiry as prescribed under Rule 15 (4) of U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rule, 1991.
The contention is that the inquiry has been done away by simply saying that "esjs }kjk izdj.k ls lacf/kr leLr vfHkys[kksa ds voyksdu o euu djus ls ;g lek/kku gks x;k gS fd dkUl0 1633 uk0iq0 vfer dqekj tSls toku iqfyl foHkkx es fu;qDr jgsaxs rks ns'k@jkT; dh vkfUrjd lqj{kk ,oa 'kklu }kjk LFkkfir fu;eksa dk ikyu djus dh vis{kk ugha dh tk ldrh gSA ,sls mn~n.M] vuq'kklughu o vijkf/kd izo`fRr ds tokuksa ls iqfyl foHkkx ds vk/kkjHkwr mn~ns'; e`r izk;% gks tkrs gSA ,slh fLFkfr es tkWp@foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh fd;k tkuk ;qfDr;qDr] O;ogkfjd o U;k;laxr ugha jg tkrk gSA bl izdkj eSa dkUl0 1633 uk0iq0@vfHk;qDr vfer dqekj dks iqfyl foHkkx ls lsokP;qr fd;k tkuk iw.kZ :i ls U;k;ksfpr ,oa vfuok;Z ikrk gWwA"
The contention is that the inquiry could not done away by merely observing as aforesaid and the impugned order shows totally non-application of mind. He further submits that a number of cases have already been allowed by this Court and the matter has been remanded back to the authority concerned to proceed in accordance with law.
A reliance has been placed upon annexure no. 9 to the writ petition wherein a number of judgment has been annexed. Reliance has also been placed upon a Division Bench decision of this Court passed in Special Appeal Defective No. 1029 of 2011 wherein the Division Bench of this Court has hold the order passed by the learned Single Judge and has concluded herein as under:
"We do not find any force in the submission for the reason that under the aforesaid provision, the disciplinary authority is required to record its satisfaction with reasons in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry. Thus the reason for not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry is to be reflected in the order. From a perusal of the order impugned in the writ petition, it is evident that no such reason has been disclosed by the appellant except satisfaction has been recorded by mentioning the provision contained in proviso (b) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 of 1991 Rules, which is not the compliance of statutory requirement. Recording reasons along with satisfaction is mandatory under Rule 8(2)(b) as has been held in a catena of decisions which has been relied upon by the learned single Judge in the order under appeal. No other point is urged by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant.
We, therefore, do not find any error in the order of the learned single Judge. The appeal being without merit is dismissed."
The said factual position has not been disputed by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 19.5.2014 is liable to be quashed and is, hereby, quashed and the matter is remanded back to the authority concerned to be decided a fresh. The authority concerned is given liberty to undertake a regular inquiry in terms of Rule 15 (4) of U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rule, 1991 by following the procedure as laid therein.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is allowed."
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the case of the petitioner is also squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment.
I have perused the judgment.
The aforesaid judgment was corrected vide order dated 11.4.2017 and I find that the allegations and nature of the orders against the petitioner are identical in nature, therefore, the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law.
Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 19.5.2014, 7.10.2014 and 23.1.2015 are set aside. Present petition is allowed in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
Order Date :- 28.2.2018 Lalit Shukla