Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 42791 of 2004 Petitioner :- Randhir Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Gautam Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,D.R. Chaudhary Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Vijay Gautam, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondent 1 and Sri D. R. Chaudhary, learned counsel for respondent 2.
2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed challenging order dated 20.09.1999 passed by National Human rights Commission, New Delhi, directing respondents 1, 3, 4 and 5 to pay compensation of Rs.5 lakhs to family members of deceased Munna @ Furken Ali. Pursuant thereto, respondent authorities have held petitioner guilty of causing said loss to State and by impugned order dated 21.05.2004 (Annexure 3), Senior Superintendent of Police, Kanpur Nagar has fixed responsibility upto petitioner for recovery of Rs.60,000/-.
3. It is contended that impugned order has been passed by Senior Superintendent of Police without any show cause notice or opportunity to petitioner though recovery is a minor penalty under U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules 1991").
4. When questioned, learned Standing Counsel could not dispute that before passing order dated 21.05.2004 neither any inquiry was conducted nor any show cause notice or opportunity was given to petitioner.
5. In view thereof, impugned order of recovery cannot be sustained. Writ petition is partly allowed. Impugned order dated 21.05.2004 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition) in so far as it relates to petitioner, is hereby set aside.
6. However, this order shall not preclude respondents, competent authority from passing a fresh order following the procedure laid down in Rules 1991.
Order Date :- 26.10.2018
Manish Himwan