Court No. - 38
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14465 of 2019 Petitioner :- Km. Shabnam Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Mishra,Abhishek Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
This writ petition is directed against an order of dismissal dated 25th July, 2019 passed under Rule 8(2)(b) of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. This order records that petitioner had misrepresented her candidature as a dependent of freedom fighter, whereas she actually was not a dependent of freedom fighter and that in the category to which petitioner belongs she had not secured marks above the cut off. The order dated 25th July, 2019 is assailed on the ground that no enquiry has been conducted in the matter and material otherwise does not exist on record which may demonstrate that holding of disciplinary enquiry would not be feasible in the facts of the present case. Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and another Vs Tulsiram Patel, (1985) 3 SCC 398, is also relied upon.
From a perusal of material placed on record, it appears that petitioner has been selected as Constable pursuant to recruitment exercise initiated in the year 2015. She has been selected treating her to be a dependent of freedom fighter. However, it has been found that petitioner is actually not a dependent of freedom fighter. Petitioner apparently belongs to OBC category and has otherwise not secured marks above the cut off.
Though argument advanced on behalf of petitioner that materials do not exist to hold that a disciplinary enquiry would not be feasible has substance, but in the facts of the present case the order impugned need not be interfered with even in that circumstance. The reason for which petitioner has been dismissed from service is that she has otherwise not secured marks above the cut off in the category to which she belongs and her selection was based on misstatement of fact. This Court, therefore, proceeded to pass following orders on 19.9.2019:-
"Petitioner may file supplementary affidavit annexing the document, which may show that petitioner is a dependent of freedom fighter. Post as fresh on 26.9.2019.
It will be open for the learned Standing Counsel to obtain instructions, in the meantime."
Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that petitioner is not a dependent of freedom fighter and no such material exists in favour of petitioner. In that circumstances, petitioner cannot be treated as a candidate belonging to dependent of freedom fighter. She has otherwise not secured marks above the cut off in the OBC category to which she belongs. Facts in that regard are admitted.
Once that be so, no useful purpose would be served in remitting the matter back to the authority concerned for conducting an enquiry, once facts are admitted. Holding of enquiry in the matter would not be of any relevance in view of the admitted facts that exist on record. Though for a different reason but the order of dismissal, therefore, is liable to be sustained.
Writ petition fails, and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.9.2019 Anil