Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9654 of 2019 Petitioner :- Rudra Pratap Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudhir Kumar (Chandraul) Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
The present petition is directed against the order dated 28.05.2019 whereby the petitioner has been repatriated to his parent department i.e. home guard office from home guard driver posted in the U.P. Dial 100 vehicle. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order of repatriation of the petitioner has been passed on the complaint of the respondent no.4 who was posted in U.P. Dial-100 vehicle as Sub Inspector. The contention is that the respondent no.4 had demanded illegal gratification from the petitioner and the complaint in this regard has been made to the Commissioner, State Election Commission, U.P. Lucknow on 23.04.2019, for the reason that the Lok Sabha elections were in vogue. The copy of the said complaint had been addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Chitrakoot and Additional Director General of Police, ITECS/U.P. Dial 100, U.P., Lucknow.
Submission is that on the complaint made by the petitioner, an enquiry was conducted and statement of the petitioner was recorded. Faced with the enquiry, respondent no.4 had succeeded in getting the repatriation of the petitioner by an order passed by the Superintendent of Police, Chitrakoot. It is then contended that the petitioner had been posted as home guard driver in U.P. Dial-100 vehicle after getting a training in this regard by virtue of the circular dated 03.07.2018.
Further contention is that the repatriation of the petitioner could not be done except with the permission of the Additional Director General of Police, ITECS/U.P. Dial-100, U.P., Lucknow. Reliance has been placed on clause-1 of the circular dated 03.07.2018.
Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the records, it would be relevant to note that the clause-1 of the circular dated 03.7.2018, indicates that the posting of driver in Dial-100 vehicle is for a period of six months. No driver can be kept in one vehicle for a period of more than six months. It is admitted to the petitioner that he remained in the vehicle No.U.P.32-DG 2028 as home guard driver for more than six months. The decision for repatriation of the petitioner vide order dated 28.05.2019, therefore, cannot be said to in contravention of the circular dated 03.07.2018.
Further noticing the fact that the repatriation of the petitioner has been done on the complaint of respondent no.4 without giving him any opportunity of hearing as is reflected from the order impugned dated 28.05.2019, a liberty is granted to the petitioner to submit his explanation to the Additional Director General of Police, ITECS/U.P. Dial-100, U.P., Lucknow and his complaint against respondent no.4, if any.
In case, the petitioner approaches the Additional Director General of Police, ITECS/U.P. Dial-100, U.P., Lucknow with the complaint and his explanation as aforesaid, the respondent no.5 shall be under obligation to look to the same and do the needful in accordance with law by passing a reasoned and speaking order, preferably, within a period of one month from the date of submission of certified copy of this order.
Lastly, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that after repatriation to the parent department, the petitioner is being harassed on account of the observation in the order dated 28.05.2019 and has not been assigned any duty of home guard. No enquiry whatsoever has been initiated against the petitioner as on date.
Considering the said fact, it is directed that the District Commandant, Home Guard, Chitrakoot shall look into the grievances of the petitioner for assigning duties of home guard, in case, no departmental enquiry has yet been initiated against the petitioner.
Subject to the above, the present petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 25.6.2019 Himanshu