1. Heard Shri Abhishek Bose, Advocate, holding brief of Shri Mohd. Shujauddin Waris, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Pankaj Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State opposite parties through video conferencing.
2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
"(i) Issue or pass a writ, direction and/ or order in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order of punishment dated 12-02-2021 issue by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Headquarter), Lucknow as contained as Anneure No.4, hereto, together with the inquiry report dated 18.11.2020 submitted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Luknow as contained as Annexure No-14, hereto, as well as the impugned departmental proceedings conducted against the petitioner, and
(ii) Issue or pass a writ, direction and/or order in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent hereto from conducting any further proceedings in pursuance of the impugned punishment order dated 12-02-2021, issue by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Headquarter), Lucknow as contained as Anneure No.4, hereto, and allow the petitioner to continue on the post of Head Constable of Civil Police in District Lucknow and pay him salary and allowances of the said post as and when the same falls due together with arrears with effect from November, 2019, and
(iii) Issue any other writ, order and/ or order in any other nature deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case including an order awarding the costs of this petition to the petitioner and against the respondents."
3. Shri Abhishek Bose, submits that by order under challenge dated 12.02.2021 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Headquarter), Lucknow (Annexure-4), the petitioner, Head Constable in Civil Police, has been dismissed from service. He submits that the order of dismissal cannot be sustained as it is contrary to Paragraphs-486(1), 492 and 493 of the U.P. Police Regulations.
4. Shri Bose further submits that previously, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 3192 (SS) of 2021, challenging the show cause notice issued by the Inquiry Officer, which was disposed of finally by this Court vide judgment and order dated 03.02.2021 providing as under:
"After perusal of the record as well as the contentions made by learned counsel for the parties, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned show cause notice dated 13.01.2021.
However, in the interest of justice, since the petitioner has made a case that the aforesaid inquiry is beyond jurisdiction and the same is contrary to Paras 486(1), 492 & 493 of U.P. Police Regulations, the concerned authority is directed to consider the objections, if so raised by the petitioner in his reply to the show cause notice dated 13.01.2021, and thereafter take a decision in the matter."
He submits that in compliance of the order dated 03.02.2021 the petitioner raised objections as regards the inquiry being without jurisdiction and contrary to Paras 486(1), 492 & 493 of U.P. Police Regulations before the concerned authority in his reply to the show cause notice vide paras-5 to 8 of the reply, but those objections have not been considered by the disciplinary authority and the order of dismissal has been passed contrary to the directions of this Court.
5. Shri Pankaj Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, raises a preliminary objection that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has statutory alternative remedy of filing appeal against the order of dismissal, under Rule-20 of the U.P. Police Officers Subordinate Ranks (Punishments and Appeals), Rules, 1991 (in short, 'Rules, 1991'); and in view thereof, this writ petition deserves not to be entertained.
6. Shri Abhishek Bose could not dispute that the order of dismissal is appellable under Rule 20 of the Rules, 1991.
7. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
8. So far as the submission of the petitioner's counsel that the disciplinary authority did not consider the objection as raised by the petitioner as regards violation of Paras 486(1), 492 & 493 of U.P. Police Regulations is concerned, I do not find any substance, in such submission, in as much as from perusal of the order of dismissal it is evident that those objections were considered, but were not accepted by the disciplinary authority.
9. Rule-20 of the Rules, 1991 is being reproduced as under:
"20. Appeals?(1) Every Police Officer against whom an order of punishment mentioned in sub-clauses (i) to (iii) of clause (a) and subclauses (i) to (iv) of clause (b) entitled to prefer an appeal against the order of such punishment to the authority mentioned below :?
(a) to the Deputy Inspector-General, if the original order is of 'the Superintendent of Police or officers empowered under subrule (4) of rule 7 of these rules;
(b) to the Inspector-General, if the original order is of the Deputy Inspector General;
(c) to the Director-General, if the original order is of Inspector General ;
(d) to the State Government, if the original order is of Director General.
(2) No appeal shall lie against an order inflicting any of the petty punishments enumerated in sub-rules (2) and (3) of rule 4.
(3) Every officer desiring to prefer an appeal shall do so separately.
(4) Every appeal, preferred under these rules shall contain all material, statements, arguments relied on by the police officers preferring the appeal, and shall be complete in itself, but shall not contain disrespectful or improper language. Every appeal shall be accompanied by a copy of final order which is the subject of appeal.
(5) Every appeal, whether the appellant is still in service of Government or not, shall be submitted through the Superintendent of Police of the district or in the case of police officers not employed in district work through the head of the office to which the appellant belongs or belonged.
(6) An appeal will not be entertained unless it is preferred within three months from the date on which the police officer concerned was informed of the order of punishment Provided that the appellate authority may, at his discretion, for good cause shown extend the said period up to six months.
(7) If the appeal preferred does not comply with the provisions of sub-rule (4) the appellate authority may require the appellant to comply with the provisions of the said sub-rule within one month of the notice of such order to him and if the appellant fails to make the above compliance the appellate authority may dispose of the appeal in the manner as it deems fit.
(8) The Director-General or an Inspector-General may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, either on his own notion or on request from an appellate authority before whom the appeal is pending transfer the same to any order officer of corresponding rank."
10. The order of dismissal is thus appealable under Rule-20 of the Ruls, 1991. It is settled in law that if a statute provides for alternative remedy and particularly the remedy of appeal, this Court would ordinarily not entertain the writ petition and would relegate the petitioner to first avail the statutory remedy of appeal.
11. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition on the ground of availability of statutory remedy of appeal.
12. At this stage, Shri Bose submits that the departmental appeal is required to be filed within a period of three months, which has already expired, but, in view of sub Rule-6 of Rule-20, the appellate authority has power to extend the period of three months up to six months, for good cause shown.
13. Considering the aforesaid, this writ petition is dismissed on the ground of statutory alternative remedy leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of appeal under Rule-20 of the Rules, 1991 along with an application for extension of time, for filing the appeal, within a period of 15 days from today. If appeal is filed along with such an application the appellate authority shall sympathetically and liberally consider the extension of period of filing appeal under the Rule-20(6) of the Rules, 1991.
14. It is clarified that this Court has not observed anything about the merit of the plea of violation of Paras-486(1), 492 & 493 of the U.P. Police Regulations in passing the dismissal order, which plea, it is open to the petitioner to raise before the appellate authority.
15. The writ petition is dismissed but subject to what has been observed and directed as above.
Order Date :- 28.5.2021 Mustaqeem