Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

VINOD KUMAR versus SR. SUPDT. OF POLICE & ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Vinod Kumar v. Sr. Supdt. Of Police & Another - SPECIAL APPEAL No. 727 of 2004 [2006] RD-AH 21627 (21 December 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No.32

Special Appeal No.727 of 2004

Vinod Kumar v. Senior Superintendent of Police,

Mathura and another.

Hon'ble S. Rafat Alam, J.

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.

Instant special appeal, under the Rules of the Court, is preferred against the judgment dated 27.2.2004 of the Hon'ble Single Judge dismissing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.31245 of 1997 of the appellant.

Heard Shri Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Shri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

It is not disputed that the petitioner-appellant was recruited as a Constable in U.P. Police in the year 1996.  However, by the order dated 3.6.1997 he was terminated from service under the U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975 (for short 'the Rules) by an order of termination simplicitor against which the aforesaid writ petition was filed, which has been dismissed vide judgment under appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appellant was placed under suspension on 9.7.1996 on the allegation of unruly behaviour after consuming liquor in the office.  Thereafter, he was reinstated by an order dated 8.12.1996.  He was also awarded an adverse entry on 14.5.1997 and thereafter the impugned order of termination was passed, which shows that the alleged misconduct was the foundation.  He further contended that without inquiry the same could not have been done and thus, the order of termination is violative of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India.  

We are not impressed with the submission for the reason that the order of termination is simplicitor and does not show that the same is stigmatic or cast any stigma on the conduct of the appellant or is founded on the alleged misconduct.  No doubt, it is true that the authorities placed him under suspension on 9.7.1996, whereafter he was reinstated and was also awarded an adverse entry on 14.5.1997 but there is nothing on record to show that the same constitutes foundation for passing the impugned order. The entire work and performance of an employees if considered to assess the performance to decide as to whether the power of the termination simplicitor is to be exercised or not, it cannot be said to be a foundation.  This aspect has been considered in detail in Dipti Prakash Banerjee v. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta & others, AIR 1999 SC 983 and State of Punjab & others v. Balbir Singh, (2004) 11 SCC 743.

In view of the aforesaid exposition of law, we do not find any fault in the order of the Hon'ble Single Judge.  Therefore, the appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.  However, there shall be no order as to costs.

21.12.2006

A.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.