Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7482 of 2004 Petitioner :- Malkhan Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Gautam Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Sri Vinod Misra, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Vijay Gautam, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 1, 3, 4 & 5.
2. This writ petition is directed against Judgment and order dated 31st October 2003 passed by State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') dismissing Claim Petition No. 344/V/HM-1/91 (Malkahn Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others) filed by petitioner and thereby upholding punishment order dated 2.6.1990 passed by respondent no. 4, Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi as well as appellate order dated 27.11.1990 passed by respondent no. 3, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Varanasi Range, Varanasi.
3. Petitioner was working as a constable in armed police of U.P. In the year 1990, he was posted at District Varanasi. On account of unauthorised absence as well as absence without permission, departmental proceedings were initiated against petitioner. A charge sheet dated 3.7.1989 was served upon petitioner whereby following charge was alleged against him:-
";g fd vkids fo:) vukf/kd`r :i ls vuqifLFkr ds laca/k esa o"kZ 1979&80 ,oa o"kZ 1986 eas nQk&7 dh dk;Zokgh dh tk pqdh gSA o"kZ 1979 eas tks vkids fo:) nQk 7 dh dk;Zokgh dh xbZ Fkh mlesa vkidks nks lky ds fy;s osrueku ds nks LVst ij fnukad 29&11&79 ls fjM~;wl fd;k x;k ,oa xSjgkftjh dk le; mesngd eas Lohd`r fd;k x;k gSA o"kZ 1980 eas tks vkids fo:) nQk&7 dh dk;Zokgh dh xbZ] mleas 6 ekg ds fy;s ,d c<kRs rjh fnukad 20&7&80 ls ?kVk;s tkus dk vkns'k fn;k x;k gS o"kZ 1986 eas tks nQk&7 dh dk;Zokgh vkids fo:) dh xbZ gS mleas vkidk vuqifLFkr dky dk fcuk osru vodk'k Lohd`r fd;k x;k gS rFkk osrueku ewy osru dze eas 3 o"kZ ds fy;s ?kVk fn;k x;k gSA blds vfrfjDr vkidk vukf/kd`r :i ls vuqifLFkr ds laca/k esa o"kZ 1988 eas nq'pfj=y[s kk rFkk o"kZ 1979 ls vc rd dqy 22 Nqnz n.M fey pqdk gSA blds ckn Hkh vki fnukad 3&5&88 ls 13&5&88 rd 9 fnol 23 ?k.Vk 30 feuV fnukad 5&8&88 ls 19&8&88 rd 14 fnol 15 ?k.Vk 15 feuV ,oa fnukad 25&3&89 ls 29&3&89 rd 3 fnol 19 ?k.Vk 20 feuV vukf/kd`r :i ls vuqifLFkr gksus ds vknh gks pqds gS vkSj vki iqfyl foHkkx eas loks djus ;kX;s ugha gSA^^ “That in respect of your unauthorised absence, action u/s 7 has been taken against you in 1979-80 and 1986. As a result of action u/s 7 taken against you in 1979, your pay has been reduced at two levels of the pay-scale for two years w.e.f.
29.11.79 and period of absence has been sanctioned in your favour. As a result of action u/s 7 taken against you in 1980, order directing withdrawal of an increment for six months w.e.f. 20.7.80 has been passed. In the action u/s 7 taken against you in 1986, your leave without pay has been sanctioned and basic pay in the original pay-scale has been reduced for three consecutive years.
Apart from this, in connection with your unauthorised absence, you have been awarded an entry for misconduct in the year 1988 and a total of 22 minor punishments from the year 1979 until now. Even after this, you have got habitual in being unauthorisedly absent remaining away from duties for 9 days, 23 hours and 30 minutes from 03.05.1988 to 13.05.1988;
for 14 days, 15 hours and 15 minutes from 05.08.1988 to 19.08.1988 and for 3 days, 19 hours and 20 minutes from 25.03.1989 to 29.03.1989; and you are not fit for service in the police department.”
(English translation by the Court)
4. Subsequently, amended charge sheet 11.12.1989 was served upon petitioner to the following effect:-
" eSa fofj"B iqfyl v/kh{kd ,u0ds0JhokLro vki dkUl0418 ih0 ey[kku flag dks la'kksf/kr vkjksi i= ds }kjk drZO; ikyu esa ?kksj vuq'kklughurk] mnklhurk iznf'kZr djus rFkk vius in ds v;ksX; gksus ds fy;s /kkjk &7 iqfyl ,DV ds vUrxZr fuEu vkjksi ls vkjksfir djrk gwW%& 1- vki fnukad 3-5-88 ls 13-5-88 rd 9 fnol 23 ?k.Vk 30 feuV] fnukad 5&8&88 ls 19&8&88 rd 14 fnol 15 ?k.Vk 15 feuV ,oa 25&3&89 ls 29&3&89 rd 3 fnol 19 ?k.Vk 20 feuV vukf/kd`r :i ls jktdh; fM;qVh ls vuqifLFkr gksus ds vknh gks pqds gSaA mijksDr la'kksf/kr vkjksi i= esa ,oa fnukad 3-7-89 dks vkidks gLrxr djk;s x;s vkjksi&i= eas dsoy bruk vUrj gS fd foxr dky eass vkidks iznku dh xbZ iwoZ ltkvkas dk mYys[k bl vkjksi i= eas ugh gS rFkk iwoZ ltkvkas ds fooj.k dks vkjksi i= eas 'kkfey ugha fd;k x;k gSA 'ks"k vkjksi iwoZ eas fn;s x;s vkjksi i= ds gh vuq:i gSA"
“I, Senior Superintendent of Police N.K. Srivastava, do hereby, by way of the revised charge-sheet, charge you Constable 418 P. Malkhan Singh u/s 7 of The Police Act for showing gross indiscipline, indifference in discharge of duties and for being unfit for your post.
1. You have got habitual in being unauthorisedly absent remaining away from official duties for 9 days, 23 hours and 30 minutes from 03.05.1988 to 13.05.1988; for 14 days, 15 hours and 15 minutes from 05.08.1988 to 19.08.1988 and for 3 days, 19 hours and 20 minutes from 25.03.1989 to 29.03.1989.
The aforesaid revised charge-sheet differs from the charge- sheet served upon you on 03.07.1989 to the extent that the present charge-sheet neither mentions all the punishments given to you in the past nor spells out the details of the punishments given earlier. The rest of the charge is similar to what has been mentioned in the charge-sheet served upon you earlier.”
(English translation by the Court)
5. Petitioner submitted his reply dated 11.7.1989 to the aforesaid charge sheets. Enquiry Officer proceeded with the enquiry and recorded statements of witnesses. Thereafter, statement of petitioner was recorded on 20.2.1990 wherein petitioner categorically stated that he does not wish to furnish any further reply nor does he wish to propose any witness in defence. Earlier reply dated 11.7.1989 submitted by petitioner be treated as defence of petitioner. Ultimately, enquiry officer submitted enquiry report dated 31.3.1990 wherein charges alleged against petitioner were found proved. A show cause notice was issued to petitioner by respondent no.4-Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi. Petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice wherein petitioner stated that he was absent only for 25 days, which was on account of ailment and compelling circumstances. Petitioner thus prayed that some other punishment than removal from service be awarded to him. Disciplinary Authority agreeing with the findings recorded by Enquiry Officer passed order dated 2.6.1990 dismissing petitioner from service. Feeling aggrieved by order of Disciplinary Authority dated 2.6.1990, petitioner preferred an appeal before D.I.G., Police Range, Varanasi. Aforesaid appeal filed by petitioner was dismissed, vide order dated 27.11.1990. Challenging aforesaid orders, petitioner filed above mentioned claim petition before Tribunal which has been dismissed, vide order dated 31.10.2003. Consequently claimant- claimant-petitioner has now appeared before this Court by means of this writ petition challenging order dated 31.1.2003 passed by Tribunal, order dated 27.11.1990 passed by Disciplinary Authority and 2.6.1990 passed by appellate authority.
6. Mr. Vinod Mishra, learned counsel appearing for petitioner submits that petitioner's defence has not been considered. But, when questioned that Tribunal has recorded a finding that claimant petitioner himself stated before Enquiry Officer that he does not wish to propose any witness to be examined in defence and reply dated 11.7.1989, earlier submitted by him be treated as explanation in defence, learned counsel for petitioner could not dispute the aforesaid finding recorded by Tribunal.
7. Thus, present writ petition filed by petitioner, who is a delinquent employee is concluded by findings of fact. Findings recorded by Tribunal could not be dislodged by counsel for petitioner being perverse or irrational.
8. Writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.11.2019 Ram Murti