High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Satya Pal Singh Constable No. 1634 C.P. v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 61626 of 2005  RD-AH 1293 (22 January 2007)
Court No. 38
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 61626 of 2005
Satya Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others
Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J.
Petitioner had been performing and discharging duties as police constable. In the year 2002, he was posted at police station Brahmpuri, District Meerut and he was assigned duty as security guard at Punjab & Sind Bank as well as State Bank of India. On 20.05.2002 an incident took place, wherein some miscreants looted Gulvinder Singh and took away money. Petitioner was sought to be placed under suspension for dereliction of duty. Petitioner was charge-sheeted. In the enquiry proceeding evidence was led and thereafter, Enquiry Officer submitted report. After submission of report, show cause notice was issued to petitioner on 08.07.2002, to which petitioner submitted reply on 12.07.2002. Thereafter on 31.07.2002 services of petitioner had been dispensed with. Aggrieved petitioner filed appeal under Rule 20 of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991, which was rejected on 02.12.2002. Petitioner preferred revision on 08.12.2002. In the meantime, petitioner preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.20430 of 2003, which was dismissed on 02.02.2005 on the ground that revision was pending and writ petition was premature. However, liberty was given to the petitioner to question the validity of the aforementioned order after decision of revision. Petitioner has contended that thereafter, he acquired knowledge that his revision had already been dismissed on 03.06.2003, as such present writ petition has been filed questioning the validity of orders dated dated 31.07.2002, 02.12.2002 and 03.06.2003.
To this writ petition counter affidavit has been filed and therein the statement of fact mentioned in the writ petition has been disputed, and it has been sought to be contended that petitioner had failed to discharge duties as police personnel, as such no interference is warranted and writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
Rejoinder affidavit has been filed, wherein statement of fact mentioned in the counter affidavit has been rebutted and that of writ petition has been reiterated.
Learned counsel for petitioner, contended with vehemence that petitioner was assigned duty inside Punjab & Sind Bank as well as State Bank of India, and unnecessarily petitioner was sought to be punished without there being any material in support of the charges levelled against him, as such finding of fact which has been returned is perverse, unreasonable and writ petition deserves to be allowed.
Learned Standing Counsel representing respondents, on the other hand, contended that petitioner was a member of disciplined force nd he miserably failed to discharge duty of a police constable, as such no interference is warranted by this Court.
After respective arguments have been advanced, the factual position which emerges is to the effect that the incident is alleged to have taken place at a distance of 15 meters, where the petitioner was present and the petitioner had reached the place of occurrence, but he did nothing against the miscreants. The opinion has been formed that petitioner failed to perform his duties as police personnel. On each and every aspect of the matter, authority has considered and applied its mind, and thereafter categorical finding of fact, qua failure in discharge of duty on the part of petitioner, has been recorded. This Court while exercising power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot re-appreciate the evidence on record. Hon'ble Apex Court, recently in the case of Government of India vs. George Philip, AIR 2007 SCW 379, has summed up the entire scope of judicial review, while judging order of disciplinary authority imposing punishment on employee. Here arguments advanced on behalf of petitioner in effect is to re-appreciate the evidence. Here evidence cannot be re-appreciated and categorical finding of fact is there that place of occurrence was 15 meters away, and petitioner had failed to discharge his duties as police personnel.
Consequently, this Court not being a Court of appeal, cannot re-appreciate the evidence and interfere with the punishment, which has been awarded, and punishment cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate to the charges. Writ petition lacks substance and the same is dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.