Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA versus INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Subhash Chandra Sharma v. Inspector General Of Police & Others - WRIT - A No. 24350 of 1999 [2006] RD-AH 5460 (7 March 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. 30

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24350 of 1999

Subhash Chandra Sharma                    ----         Petitioner

Vs.

Inspector General of Police, Bareilly Zone & others-----   Respondents.

----

Hon'ble V.C.Misra, J.

On the joint request of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being heard and decided finally at the admission stage itself in terms of the Rules of Court. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged in this case.  

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the impugned show cause notice dated 14.1.1998 and orders dated 30.3.1998 passed by Superintendent of Police Shahajahanpur- respondent no. 3, dated 28.11.1998 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bareilly- respondent no. 2 and dated 19.4.1999 passed by Inspector General of Police, Bareilly Zone, Bareilly- respondent no. 1 (Annexures No. 1,3,4 & 5 to the writ petition, respectively).

The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 14 January, 1998 disclosing therein that while he was posted as Incharge at Police Station Katra in district Shahajahanpur an occurrence took place on 17.9.1997 in which dead body of one Kalloo Singh was found on the seat of Driver of truck no. U.P. -218865 regarding which first information report was registered at the police station at a very late stage i.e. on 30.11.1997 during the period the petitioner was the incharge at the police station. The show cause further disclosed that the deceased Kalloo Singh was murdered and the cause of the death was not the accident but was due to the lacerated wound on the head as per the postmortem report and the petitioner did not perform his official duty efficiently and registered the case belatedly while the truck, in question, was released in favour of its owner on the same day. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that he has been awarded a censure entry in his service book by a superior authority on the ground that he was found negligent in discharging his official duties whereas he was not present at the Police Station on the date the alleged negligence has been attributed.

From perusal of the record it appears that the petitioner was afforded an opportunity to reply the show cause notice to which he replied. The competent authority considered the reply and other material submitted by the petitioner and found that the petitioner had committed gross negligence and laches in discharging his official duty and awarded censure entry in his service book. Against the said censure entry the petitioner filed departmental appeal before respondent no. 2 who vide its order dated 28.11.1998 (Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition) dismissed the appeal. The petitioner again filed a revision before respondent no. 1, who too rejected the revision vide its order dated 19.4.1999 (Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition).

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have looked in to the record of the case and I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the respondents awarding censure entry in the service book of the petitioner. The petitioner has not been able to demonstrate before this Court that the findings recorded by the respondents in the impugned orders suffer from any illegality or error apparent on the face of the record.  More so, the said findings of fact arrived at by the respondents on the basis of which the impugned orders have been passed being based on relevant material on record, are not open to challenge before this Court. Accordingly, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

 

The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

7.3.2006

Kdo wp 24350/99 /06


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.