Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RADHE GOVIND SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. THRU' PRIN. SECRY., HOME U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Radhe Govind Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru' Prin. Secry., Home U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. - 50657 of 2006 [2007] RD-AH 17611 (12 November 2007)

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 AT ALLAHABAD

Hon. Pankaj Mithal,J

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Standing counsel.

The petitioner is a constable in U.P. police. His services have been terminated vide impugned order dated 14.4.2006 on the ground that while on duty he had demanded illegal gratification.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order has been passed without holding any disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner and without even issuing a show cause.

I have considered the above submission. U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 in Rule 8 specifically provides that no police officer shall be dismissed removed or reduced in rank without holding a proper enquiry or disciplinary enquiry. Rule 8 (2) (b) provides for dispensing with such an enquiry, if the authority concerned is satisfied for reasons to be recorded in writing that an enquiry is not reasonably practicable. A perusal of the impugned order does not indicate that any enquiry was conducted in the matter. The petitioner was never held guilty of any charge. In the counter affidavit also it has not been stated that any disciplinary enquiry was conducted against the petitioner before passing the impugned order. Therefore, in the present case no such disciplinary enquiry was conducted against the petitioner before passing the impugned order of his removal from service nor the enquiry has been dispensed with. The impugned order therefore, is unsustainable under law being in clear violation of Rule 8 of the aforesaid Rules and the principles of natural justice.

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 4.9.2006 (annexure 1 to the writ petition) is quashed with liberty to the respondents to pass afresh appropriate order in accordance with law.

Petition allowed.

12.11.2007

SKS(50657-06)


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.