Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12884 of 2018 Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shashank Shekhar Mishra,Mahesh Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shambhu Chopra Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shambhu Chopra, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.
By means of the present petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 19.5.2018 passed by respondent no.5, namely, Superintendent of Police, Hathras, whereby the amount of Rs. 25,000/- is sought to be deducted from the salary of the petitioner. The deduction is being made on the ground that the National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi had awarded a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- on the complaint made by the victim's mother Smt. Sita Devi. On the said complaint it was found that the Investigating Officer had not conducted the investigation in a rightful manner with utmost care and caution and has erred in not submitting the charge-sheet under Section 3/4 POCSO Act.
The order impugned at page '20' of the paper book records that the petitioner was one of the Investigating Officers to whom investigation was entrusted and he had erred in not completing the investigation in a proper manner.
Challenging the order impugned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner cannot be held responsible, for any allegations of slackness on his part in discharging his duties as Investigating Officer, without giving him an opportunity to explain.
Submission is that no departmental enquiry whatsoever has been initiated against the petitioner for fixing his responsibility in the matter of investigation in question. The order of recovery for the compensation paid by the department under the directions of the Nati,onal Human Rights Commission, New Delhi, therefore, cannot be sustained.
To this submission, learned standing counsel though tried to defend the order but has not been able to demonstrate before the Court that the responsibility of the petitioner has been fixed after due enquiry made by the competent authority. Further that opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner before fixing his responsibility.
In view thereof, this Court is of the considered view that the order dated 9.5.2018 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Hathras is in violation of the principle of natural justice, the same cannot be sustained. However, while setting aside the order dated 9.5.2018, the Superintendent of Police, Hathras is directed to make a fresh enquiry giving opportunity to the petitioner to explain his conduct and further to pass an order after considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner so as to arrive at a definite finding of dereliction of duty or misconduct against the petitioner.
For the purpose, a fresh notice is required to be issued to the petitioner within the shortest period to which reply shall be submitted by the petitioner immediately without seeking any irrelevant adjournments. The entire exercise shall be completed by the Superintendent of Police, Hathras, preferably, within a period of two months from the date of submission of a certified copy of this order.
Subject to the above observation and directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 28.5.2018
AK Pandey