Reserved on -15.11.2019 Delivered on – 29.11.2019
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 37649 of 2015 Petitioner :- Javed Khan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Tiwari,Madhu Ranjan Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. This writ petition has been filed, inter alia, for the following relief :-
“(I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned punishment order dated 05.06.2014 passed by the then Superintendent of Police, Pilibhit i.e. respondent No.4, the appellate order dated 20.10.2014 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bareilly Zone, Bareilly i.e. respondent No.3 and the revisional order dated 29.12.2014 passed by the Inspector General of Police, Bareilly Zone, Bareilly i.e. respondent No.2 whereby appeal and revision filed by the petitioner has been rejected and punishment order dated 05.06.2014 has been approved.”
2. The petitioner in the present writ petition was initially appointed as a Constable in Civil Police, Uttar Pradesh, in the year 1995 and in the year 2011 he was transferred to Police Station Gajraula, District Pilibhit. During this tenure, one Mrs. Shamim Bano, made a complaint against the petitioner and consequently a confidential report was submitted by the then S.H.O. Police Station Gajraula, Pilibhit. On the basis of said confidential report Mr. Kaluram, Circle Officer, Pooranpur, Pilibhit, was appointed as inquiry officer, who initiated preliminary inquiry against the petitioner. Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer submitted preliminary inquiry report on 21.1.2012. The conclusion of the inquiry report dated 21.1.2012 is as follows:
"नि ष्कर्ष#ः प्रश्नगत प्रकरण में सम्बन्धि23त से की गयी जा कारी बया ात अभि<लेखीय परिरशील व अ2य स्रोतो से की गयी जांच से स्पष्ट होता है निक का0 165 ा0 पु0 जावेद खां द्वारा था ा गजरौला पर नि यनिु 3 के दौरा शराब का सेव कर ज ता के व्यनि3यों से दव्ु य#वहार निकये जा े की भिशकायतें प्राप्त हो े पर था ाध्यक्ष गजरौला के द्वारा अप ी आख्या निद ांनिकत 1.10.2011 के माध्यम से अवगत कराया गया ह। जांच की अवधि3 में गोप ीय रुप से जासकारी निकये जा े तथा ग्राम गजरौला में ज ता के व्यनि3यों श्रीमती शमीम बा ों श्री रहीश बेग आनिद से पूछताछ निकए जा े व का0 मेम्बर सिंसह से पूछताछ निकये जा े पर था ाध्यक्ष गजरौला द्वारा प्रेनिर्षत गोप ीय आख्या के तथ्यों की पुनिष्ट होती ह। आरक्षी द्वारा अप े कथ ों में अप े निवरुद्ध अंनिकत तथ्यों को निमथ्या अवगत कराया गया हो अनिवश्वस ीय एवं अप े बचाव में अंनिकत कराया जा ा परिरलधिक्षत होता है। आरक्षी का यह क्रत्य ज ता में पुलिलस निव<ाग की छनिव को 3ूनिमल करता ह। उल्लेख ीय है निक चरिरत्र पंजिजका के अवलोक से निवनिदत होता है निक आरक्षी को उसके द्वारा सेवा में अवधि3 में पुलिलस निव<ाग में प्रदत्त निकये जा े वाले निवभि<न्न प्रकार के दीर्घ# दण्ड एवं छु द्र दण्द से दन्धिण्डत निकया जा चुका ह। अतः सम्पूण# जांच से उ3 कृ त्य के लिलये आरक्षी 165 ा0 पु0 जावेद खाँ था ा गजरौला पीली<ीत को दोर्षी पाते हुए उ 0 प्र 0 अ3ी स्थ श्रेणी के पुलिलस अधि3कारी/कम#चारीगण की दण्ड एवं अपील नि यमावली-1991 के नि यम 14(1) अ2तग#त काय#वाही निकये जा े की संस्तुधित की जाती है।"
3. In pursuance of the aforesaid inquiry report, the departmental proceedings were initiated and a charge sheet dated 30.1.2012/5.4.2012, was submitted against the petitioner. The charge framed against the petitioner is reproduced hereinafter:
"आपको एतद्द्वारा आरोनिपत निकया जाता है निक जब आप था ा गजरौला पर नि य3 थे तब आके द्वारा शराब का सव े कर े, ज ता के व्यनि3यों के र्घर में रानित्र में जाकर दव्ु य#वहार कर े जिजससे ज ता में पुलिलस की छनिव 3ूनिमल हो े के सम्ब23 मं आपके के निवरुद्ध प्रधिचलिलत प्रारन्धिम्<क जांच में आप को दोर्षी पाया गया, जो आपको अप े पद पर ब े रह े को अयोग्य प्रदर्शिशत करता है।"
4. The petitioner was granted 15 days time to submit his reply to the charge sheet. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his reply as well as appeared in the departmental inquiry proceedings.
5. The Inquiry Officer vide his inquiry report dated 9.11.2012, found that charges levelled against the petitioner were proved and recommended his termination from the services. The conclusion of the departmental inquiry is as follows:
"नि ष्कर्ष#-
पत्रावली पर उपलब्3 अभि<लेखों एवं अंनिकत निकये गये अभि<योज साधिक्षयों के अभि<कथ से आरोपी आरक्षी 165 ा0 पु0 जावेद खां था ा निदयोरिरया कलां ज पद पीली<ीत के निवरुद्ध उ 0 प्र 0 अ3ी स्थ श्रेणी के पुलिलस अधि3कारिरयों/कम#चारिरयों की (दण्ड एवं अपील) नि यमावली-1991 के नि यम-14 (1) के अ2तग#त की गयी निव<ागीय काय#वाही से जब आप था ा गजरौला पर नि य3 थे, तब आपके द्वारा शराब का सेव कर े, तथा रानित्र में ज ता के व्यनि3यों के र्घर जाकर दव्ु य#वहार कर े जिजससे ज ता में पुलिलस की छनिव 3ूनिमल हो े जो आपको अप े पद पर ब े रह े को अयोग्य प्रदर्शिशत कर े की पुनिष्ट पायी जाती ह। आरोपी आरक्षी 165 ा0 पु0 मोहम्मद जावदे खॉ, की चरिरत्र पंजिजका में 21 बार, निब ा वेत अवकाश वर्ष#-2006 में एक बार नि लन्धिम्बत, 045 दष्चरिरत्र लेख, 19 बार परड दलेल से दन्धिण्डत निकये जा े की पुनिष्ट पायी जाती ह। इस प्रकार इसका आचरण बल में उसक प्रधित3ारण को अवांछ ीय ब ा देता है तथा इसका काय# तथा आचरण साशय उपेक्षापूण# पुलिलस कत#व्यों के लिलए अ ुपय3 है , जो उसको अप े पद पर ब े रह े के लिलए अयोग्य प्रदर्शिशत करता है, तथा उसका कृ त्य कत#व्य के प्रधित र्घोर लापरवाही, उदासी ता एवं अ ुशास ही ता बरत े का परिरचायक है, जिजसके लिलए आरोपी आरक्षी 165 ा0 पु0 जावेद खां था ा निदयोरिरया कलां, पीली<ीत को पूण# रुप से दोर्षी पाया जाता ह।ै अतः आरोपी आरक्षी 165 ा0 पु0 जावेद खां था ा निदयोरिरया कलां, पीली<ीत द्वारा शराब का सेव कर े, ज ता के व्यनि3यों के र्घर में रानित्र में जाकर दव्ु य#वहार कर े जिजससे ज ता में पुलिलस की छनिव 3ूनिमल करके कत#व्य के प्रधित र्घोर लापरवाही , उदासी ता एवं अ शास ही ता बरत े का पूण# रुप से दोर्षी पाते हुए उ 0 प्र 0 अ3ी स्थ श्रेणी के पुलिलस अधि3कारी एवं कम#चारीगण की (दण्ड एवं अपील) नि यमावली-1991 के नि यम- 4 (1) के खण्ड-(क) दीर्घ# शान्धिस्तयां (एक) सेवा से पदच्यधिु त, निकये जा े के दण्ड से दन्धिण्डत निकये जा े की संस्तुधित की जाती ह।ै "
6. On the basis of the inquiry report, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 10.12.2012, to show cause why not punishment to the effect that he may be placed for lower pay-scale for three years be awarded to him. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the said show cause notice, wherein it was specifically mentioned that the complainant Mrs. Shamim Bano, in her statement recorded before the Inquiry Officer had not mentioned his name. Therefore, the charge levelled against him was not proved.
7. The Superintendent of Police (Disciplinary Authority) passed an order dated 5.6.2014, whereby it was held that the charge levelled against the petitioner were found proved and a penalty was awarded to the petitioner whereby the petitioner was placed on lower pay-scale for three years.
8. The petitioner thereafter, submitted an appeal against the punishment order dated 5.6.2014, under the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991, wherein he had reitreated that punishment awarded to him was without any legal basis and the charges levelled against him were not proved as the complaint had not named him in the statement recorded before the Inquiry Officer. The appellate Authority - Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bareilly Zone, Bareilly, vide order dated 20.10.2019, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner also submitted a review application, however, the same was also dismissed vide order dated 29.12.2014.
9. In these circumstances petitioner has approached this Court seeking reliefs as mentioned above.
10. Counter and rejoinder affidavits were exchanged, the petitioner also submitted written submissions.
11. Mr. Alok Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the charges levelled against the petitioner were not proved as the complainant had not named him in the statement recorded before the Inquiry Officer. He further submitted that even the complainant had not named him in his statement. The relevant part of the report is quoted hereinafter;
"निद ांक 25.06.2012 को श्री रहीश वेग पुत्र श्री बसीर वेग नि 0 गजरौला था ा गजरौला ज पद पीली<ीत े बया निकया निक लग<ग 08 माह पूव# मेरे र्घर में रानित्र में गया था। और मेरी पत् ी श्रीमती शमीम बा ों से काफी पूछताछ कर रहा था , जब मेरी पत् ी े मुझे जगाकर उठाया तो जब मैं देख े गया, तब तक वह व्यनि3 चला गया था। मेरी पत् ी े बताया था निक कोई पुलिलस वाला था, जो काफी पूछताछ कर रहा था और एस ओ साहब से मेरी पत् ी े पूरी वाक्या बताया था। मैं े र्घर पर गये व्यनि3 को हीं देखा था ा ही पहचा ता हूँ। प्रश्न- आप े अप े बया ों में अंनिकत कराया है निक कानि 0 जावेद खां आपके र्घर पर शराब पीकर आपकी पत् ी से पूछताछ कर रहे थे?
उ 0- मैं े जावेद खां का ाम हीं लिलया था ही मैं उ2हें पहचा ता हूँ। प्रश्न- क्या आपके साम े खड़े आरक्षी जावेद खाँ को आप े क<ी था ा गजरौला पर देखा था?
उ 0- मैं े क<ी हीं देखा। प्रश्न- निफर आप े बया ों पर हस्ताक्षर (अंगूठा) लगाये थे?
उ 0- जांचकता# अधि3कारी े अंगूठा लगवाया था तो मैं े लगा निदया था। प्रश्न- आप े निब ा जा कारी निकये अंगूठा क्यों लगाया?
उ 0- जांच अधि3कारी साहब े कागज पर थोड़ा सा लिलखा था और कहा निक अंगूठा लगा दो तो मैं े अंगूठा लगा निदया था , बाद में क्या लिलखा गया मुझे जा कारी हीं है। जिजरह प्रश्न- आपको साक्षी से कोई जिजरह कर ी ह।ै उत्तर- कोई जिजरह हीं कर ी ह।ै निद ांक 25.06.2012 को अभि<योज साक्षी श्रीमती शमीम बा ों पत् ी श्री रहीश बेग नि वासी ग्राम व था ा गजरौला ज पद पीली<ीत े सशपथ बया निकया निक रमजा का मही ा था माह याद हीं है लग<ग 8 माह पूव# की बात है, रानित्र के समय एक पुलिलस वाला मेरे र्घर आया, अं3ेरे हो े के कारण चेहेरे को पहचा हीं पायी लेनिक पैंट खाकी कलर हो े के कारण पुलिलस वाला लगा। वह मुझसे मेरी लड़निकयों के बारे में पूछताछ कर े लगा निक तुम्हारी निकत ी लड़की है तथा तुम लोग क्या काम करते हो आनिद सवाल पूछ रहा था। मैं े उ3 सम्ब23 में एस 0 ओ 0 साहब को एक प्राथ# ा पत्र निदया था निक उस उ3 व्यनि3 की जा कारी करे निक रानित्र में मेरे र्घर आकर निकस े मुझे परशा निकया ह। उ3 रिरपोट# पर एस ओ साहब े मुझसे पूछताछ की थी , लेनिक मेरे द्वारा निकसी पुलिलस वाले का ाम हीं बताया गया था। जिजरह प्रश्न- आप े जांच अधि3कारी के समक्ष अप े अभि<कथ ों को अंनिकत कराया गया था निक आप के र्घर पर कानि 0 जावेद खाँ रानित्र में आया था तथा बया पर आपके द्वारा अंगूठा <ी लगाया गया था। अब आप अप े बया ों को क्यों बदल रही है। उ 0- मैं े जांच अधि3कारी को जिसफ# यह बया निदया था निक मेरे र्घर पर एक पुलिलस वाला आया था, लेनिक मैं े यह हीं कहा था निक कानि 0 जावेद खां मेरे र्घर आया था। रानित्र का समय हो े के कारण मैं चेहरा हीं पहचा सकी थीं। प्रश्न- निफर अप े बया ों पर अंगूठा लगा े क्यों तय अंगूठा क्यों लगाया। ार हुई अथवा आप े उत्तर- मुझे पढ़कर हीं सु ाया गया था, जिजससे मुझे हीं मालूम क्या लिलखा था। मुझे कहा गया निक अंगूठा लगा दो, तो मैं े अंगूठा लगा निदया था। प्रश्न- अब आप अप े साम े खड़े कानि 0 जावेद खाँ को देख रही है क्या यही आप के र्घर रानित्र में गये थे। उ 0- मैं रानित्र का समय हो े के कारण इ को हीं पहचा पाई थी और इससे पूव# मैं े इ को क<ी हीं देखा था , हाँ अब अगर कही निमले तो पहचा लँगी।"
12. He further submitted that the Inquiry Officer on the basis of perverse reading of the statement of complainant namely Smt. Shamim Bano, and her husband, who had not even identified the petitioner nor approved any charge, which was mentioned in the charge-sheet and Enquiry Officer illegally and arbitrarily recommended the punishment. It was further submitted that from prima facie perusal of the statements, it was apparently clear that the involvement of the petitioner shown in the alleged incident was totally unproved. Even, the complainant namely Smt. Shamim Bano and her husband Mr. Rahish Beg had neither taken the name of petitioner nor identified during the course of enquiry.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the allegations mentioned in the charge sheet were not proved by any witness. The entire enquiry was highly arbitrary and the Inquiry Officer by considering the earlier disobedience on the part of the petitioner for which he has already suffered punishment had passed the order and as such has committed error.
14. Per contra, learned counsel for the State had relied upon the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the State and submitted that the petitioner used to visit the residence of general public in the night after taking alcohol and misbehaved with the citizens. There were repeated complaints against the petitioner on this account. The conduct of the petitioner and the behaviour was found unbecoming of a member of the police force. It was further submitted that there were sufficient evidence against the petitioner and there is no illegality in the impugned judgment.
15. Considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
16. Supreme Court in Union of India & Others Vs. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610 , has considered the scope of interference by High Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, with the disciplinary proceedings. It is apposite to quote para 12 and 13 of the said judgment:
“12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, re-appreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge no. I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into re- appreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether:
a. the enquiry is held by a competent authority;
b. the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf;
c. there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings;
d. the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case;
e. the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations;
f. the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion;
g. the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence;
h. the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding;
i. the finding of fact is based on no evidence.
13. Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:
(i). re-appreciate the evidence;
(ii). interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;
(iii). go into the adequacy of the evidence;
(iv). go into the reliability of the evidence;
(v). interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based.
(vi). correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;
(vii). go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience.”
17. In the present matter there were repeated complaints against the petitioner that he used to misbehave with the citizens by entering into their houses in the night after consuming alcohol. This led to conducting a confidential inquiry and a confidential inquiry report was submitted, wherein it had come that the petitioner used to visit houses of the general public at night after consuming alcohol and also misbehaved with the male and female member of the house. The said report was prepared after taking a statements of many persons. Though, in the disciplinary proceedings the complainant had stated that the police personnel visited her house in the night after consuming alcohol, however, the complainant had not named the petitioner in her statement. However, she had specifically stated that the police constable came to her house. Possibility of complainant being lady under threat and as such she did not named the petitioner during her statement. However it had come in the report that earlier also the then Circle Officer had cautioned the petitioner when repeated complaints were received against the petitioner regarding visiting the houses of general public in the night after consuming alcohol. It had also came on record that the petitioner was earlier punished on many occasions.
18. As mentioned in the P. Gunasekaran (supra) that High Court could not act as an appellate authority and shall not re-appreciate the evidence or not go into the adequacy or reliability of the evidence. In the present matter there was no allegation that the procedure prescribed was not followed during the disciplinary proceedings or there was violation of principles of natural justice. It could not be said that the conclusion arrived by the disciplinary authority was perverse or no reasonable person could ever had arrived at such conclusion. The petitioner was a member of discipline force which demand strict adherence of the rules and procedure more than any other department. The conduct of the petitioner that he used to visit the houses of general public at night after consuming alcohol and misbehaved with them was sufficient to hold that the petitioner was unbecoming of a member of disciplined force. However the disciplinary authority has taken a lenient view by not dismissing the petitioner from service but to award punishment of putting him on lowest scale of salary for three years. It is to note that the three years had already expired. No argument has been raised in regard to the quantum of punishment.
19. In view of the above discussion, there is no illegality in the impugned order.
20. This writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.11.2019 A. Dewal [Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.]