The petitioner has been terminated by the District Magistrate vide order dated 21.9.2006 in exercise of power under Section 10 of Village and Road Police Act, 1873 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1873"). He filed an appeal against the said order of termination, which has also been rejected by the Commissioner vide order dated 27.3.2008.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the basis of the false and fabricated report submitted by the Station Officer of Police Station Kurebhar, District Sultanpur, the Superintendent of Police, Sultanpur has recommended the said report. Thereafter, the impugned order of termination has been passed.
Further, he asserted that the opposite party No.3 has not given any opportunity and the impugned termination order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. The opposite party No.3 has failed to take into account that the Station Officer of Police Station Korebhar District Sultanpur is annoyed with the petitioner as the petitioner has refused to do the work free of cost, therefore, a false and concocted report has been submitted by him. The petitioner has never been a member of the alleged Kisan Union nor he has ever supported the work of the said Union or he has ever participated in staging Dharna at Police Station Korebhar against the arrest of the accused persons, namely, Ram Sakal Gupta and Shatrohan Yadav and relying upon the said false and fabricated report, the Superintendent of Police, Sultanpur has passed the impugned order, which is totally illegal and unlawful in the eyes of law. Though the learned Commissioner 2 has heard the arguments of the parties, yet he failed to appreciate the arguments raised by the parties.
Learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner was working on the post of Chaukiar and also associated with the Kisan Union creating problems to the administration. On 16.8.2006, the petitioner insulted the Area Lekhpal and an F.I.R. has also been lodged by the Lekhpal as crime case No. 565 of 2006 under Sections 353, 332, 504, 506 I.P.C. at Police Station Korebhar, District Sultanpur. Thereafter, the petitioner was lodged in the jail on 19.8.2006. On account of this reason, the Superintendent of Police enquired the matter on 19.8.2006 and sent a report to the District Magistrate, who in turn, placed the petitioner under suspension on 31.8.2006, to which learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the opposite party No.3 has presumed that the petitioner has committed crime. He vehemently argued that the petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged meeting of Kisan Union nor he has any concern with it at any point of time and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the dismissal order has been passed in an arbitrary manner. Further, he submits that no charge sheet was issued to the petitioner and no regular enquiry was conducted against him before passing the impugned order of termination and, therefore, the same is illegal.
Village Chowkidar is a Policeman and is a village servant. His chief duty is to watch and ward the village in his charge. He is required to carry reports to the village Headman, to assist him in tracing offenders and to make arrest as authorized by law. He is responsible to the District Magistrate for due performance of his duties. He is not a whole time employee though is a village servant. He is not prohibited from cultivating land. However, he must reside in one of the villages, for which he is responsible and cannot be employed on menial duties by members of constabulary force. He is required to attain police station twice a month on fixed dates for the purpose of reporting births and deaths. The duties of Village Chowkidar are provided in Chapter 9, Regulation 89 to 96-A of the Police Regulations besides Regulations 129, 181, 190, 257, 266, 322 and 366. Besides, for showing good conduct, 3 the provision has been made to award "good conduct stripes" and "allowance" to Village Chowkidar under Regulation 476.
His service conditions are governed by the U.P. Village and Road Police Act, 1873 (U.P. Act No. XVI of 1873) (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1873"). Section 10 thereof confers power of dismissal of Village Policeman upon the District Magistrate and section 13 provides that an order passed under Section 10 would be revisable before the Commissioner. The impugned order has been passed by the District Magistrate under Section 10 of the Act, 1873 and, therefore, it would be expedient to reproduce the same as under:-
"10. Dismissal of village or road policeman.- The Magistrate of the district may dismiss any village policeman or road policeman for any misconduct or neglect of duty."
Natural justice is the essence of fair adjudication, deeply rooted in tradition and conscience to be ranked as fundamental. The purpose of following the principles of natural justice is the prevention of miscarriage of justice.
Besides, natural justice is an inseparable ingredient of fairness and reasonableness. It is even said that the principles of natural justice must be read into unoccupied interstices of the statute, unless there is a clear mandate to the contrary.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in iota of cases has reiterated that a person who is put to any harm, he shall first be afforded adequate opportunity of showing cause. In D.K. Yadav Vs. J.M.A. Industries; (1993) 3 SCC 259 the Supreme Court while laying emphasis on affording opportunity by the authority which has the power to take punitive or damaging action held that orders affecting the civil rights or resulting civil consequences would have to answer the requirement of Article 14. The Hon'ble Apex Court concluded as under:-
"The procedure prescribed for depriving a person of livelihood would be liable to be tested on the anvil of Article 14. The procedure prescribed by a 4 statute or statutory rule or rules or orders affecting the civil rights or result in civil consequences would have to answer the requirement of Article 14. Article 14 has a pervasive procedural potency and versatile quality, equalitarian in its soul and principles of natural justice are part of Article 14 and the procedure prescribed by law must be just, fair and reasonable, and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive."
It is settled principle of law that if no date, time and place is fixed and communicated to the delinquent for conducting the inquiry after reply to the chargesheet is submitted, the entire disciplinary proceedings would be vitiated. (See Awadhesh Kumar Rastogi Vs. State of U.P and others : 2004 ( 22) LCD
1) and Radhey Kant Khare Vs. U.P. Cooperative Sugar Factories Federation Limited :( 2003 LCD page 610).
Apart from above, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ministry of Finance and another Vs. S.B.Ramesh ( 1998 SCD page 1046) and S.C. Gioratra Vs. United Commercial Bank and others ( 1995 Supp.(3) has held that if the enquiry officer did not prove the documentary evidences relied upon in the enquiry and without proving the charges levelled against the petitioner, submitted his enquiry report, it vitiates the entire proceedings due to non-observance of principle of natural justice.
In view of the above discussion, this Court veers round to the view that the impugned orders passed by the District Magistrate and the Appellate Authority suffer from an error of law and are liable to be quashed.
As a result of foregoing discussions, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed and the impugned orders dated 27.3.2008 and 21.9.2006 passed by the Appellate Authority/Commissioner and the District Magistrate respectively are hereby quashed. The matter is remanded to the District Magistrate to initiate ab intigro enquiry strictly in accordance with law and conclude the 5 proceedings within a maximum period of six months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.
The writ petition stands allowed in above terms. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there would be no order as to costs.
Dt.22.1.2010 Lakshman/