Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7516 of 2021 Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Kasgyap Respondent :- State Of U,P And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Atipriya Gautam
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vikram Bahadur Yadav, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents.
Learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents concedes that the impugned order of suspension would not sustain since it is evidently in violation of the judgment rendered by the Court in Sachchidanand Tripathi v. State of U.P. and others [Writ-A No.69308 of 2013].
The Court further notices the following detailed order which was passed in Lalit Kumar v. State of U.P. and others [Writ- A No.6591 of 2021]:-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Piyush Shukla learned Standing Counsel and Sri Manish Goel the learned Additional Advocate General who has appeared pursuant to the request of the Court.
On 15 July 2021, the Court had passed the following detailed order-
"This Court is repeatedly coming across writ petitions where Senior Superintendents' of Police in grave and serious instances of misconduct pass orders of suspension which are immediately followed by orders either initiating preliminary enquiries or preliminary enquiry reports being submitted. Such suspension orders are repeatedly assailed before this Court in light of the judgment rendered in Sachchidanand Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. and others [Writ A No.69308 of 2013]. The principal ground of attack is that the power to suspend has come to be exercised without the requisite satisfaction of prima facie guilt having been formed. In view of the procedure so adopted, in innumerable cases the Court is constrained to interfere with the orders of suspension so passed. This petition also represents an identical foray. Although the petitioner came to be suspended consequent to an act of misconduct allegedly committed where he is stated to have shot another member of the police force, the record reflects that a preliminary enquiry report was submitted after the passing of the impugned order.
In view of the aforesaid and since such a procedure is being adopted repeatedly, the Principal Secretary, the first respondent as well as the I.G.
Bareilly Range, the second respondent herein shall provide instructions to the learned Standing Counsel forthwith.
The petitioner, additionally, shall disclose to this Court the source from which the documents appended at page 31 to 37, which appears to be part of the official note-sheet have been obtained. The concerned SSP shall also look into this issue and provide instructions to the learned Standing Counsel.
Include in the list of fresh cases of 20 July 2021."
Sri Goel has placed on the record instructions provided to him by the State respondents and submits that in light of the decision rendered in Sachchidanand Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. and others [Writ A No.69308 of 2013] circulars had earlier been issued apprising all concerned of the manner in which the powers conferred under Rule 17 are to be exercised. He refers to the circulars of 14 July 2015, 30 August 2018 and 24 December 2018 in this regard. Sri Goel submits that taking note of the concern expressed by the Court, both the Principal Secretary Home as well as the D.G.P. Police have issued fresh circulars apprising all disciplinary authorities of the manner in which the powers conferred by Rule 17 are liable to be exercised. Sri Goel further submits on instructions that in the present case liberty may be granted to the respondents to withdraw the impugned order subject to rights being reserved to proceed in the matter afresh and in accordance with law.
Taking note of the aforesaid statement, it is evident that nothing further survives on this petition which shall stand disposed of. The Court leaves it open to the respondents to withdraw the impugned order forthwith and thereafter proceed afresh and in light of the statement of the Additional Advocate General noted above. The Circulars issued by the D.G.P. Police as well as the Principal Secretary Home are taken on record."
Bearing the aforesaid in mind, learned Standing Counsel states that the ends of justice would merit the impugned order being set-aside with liberty being reserved to the respondents to proceed in the matter afresh and in light of the observations made in Lalit Kumar.
In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 10 September 2020 is quashed. It is left open to the third respondent to proceed afresh and in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 12.8.2021 Vivek Kr.
Digitally signed by Justice Yashwant Varma Date: 2021.08.14 12:35:39 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad