Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


State Of U.P. Thru' Secretary (Home) And Others v. Rakesh Babu And Another - WRIT - A No. 6238 of 2006 [2007] RD-AH 5750 (30 March 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).


W.P. No. 6238 of 2006

Hon'ble Yatindra Singh, J.

Hon'ble Vijay Kumar Verma, J.

Petitioner was constable.  He was missing from his duty from 30.04.1992 to 16.11.1993. He joined the duty subsequently.  Prior to his joining, a chargesheet dated 25.10.1993 was issued to him. He participated in the enquiry.  Subsequently, the Enquiry Report was submitted on 20.03.1994. His services were terminated on 27.07.1994.  He filed a claim petition before the State Public Service Tribunal, U.P., Lucknow (Tribunal). This claim petition was allowed on 17.01.2005. Hence, the present Writ Petition.

We have heard counsel for the petitioner and Sri H. N. Singh for the respondents.

The petitioner was absent for 567 days for which he was chargesheeted and the finding was also recorded in the enquiry report that he was absent during this period. As a matter of fact, the absence was admitted and the explanation given by the petitioner was that he was ill at that time.  It is in view of this that the punishment  of  terminating his service was imposed.  Even if there is infirmity in the order passed, the Tribunal should have sent the matter back to the disciplinary authority but reinstatement could not be ordered.  In view of this, the order dated 17.1.2005 is illegal and is hereby quashed.

The correct procedure for us is to  send the matter to the disciplinary authority for imposing punishment. Considering the fact that the services of the petitioner were terminated on 27.07.1994 and even after the order of the Tribunal, the petitioner has not been reinstated due to the interim order passed by this Court, we consider it appropriate that the final punishment be imposed here itself.

The U.P. Police and Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal Rules) 1991 Rules (the Rules) are applicable to the contesting respondent.  Rule 14(1) of the Rules provide procedure for conducting departmental enquiries and it is to be done in pursuance of the procedure laid down in Appendix 1 . In Appendix 1, it is mentioned that the Enquiry Officer may also make recommendation regarding the punishment to be imposed on the charged Officer.  The Enquiry Officer had made his recommendation but this recommendation was not for terminating the services of the petitioner. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we reinstate the petitioner and impose the punishment that the petitioner will not be entitled for the salary for the period, for which he did not work. He may submit his joining and the petitioner will be paid his salary from the date of joining.  However, the aforesaid period will be counted towards his retirement benefits.

With these observations, writ petition is disposed of.




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


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 |

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