High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Constable (M) Ahsan Ali v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 3234 of 2004  RD-AH 43 (28 January 2004)
Court no. 19
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3234 Of 2004
Constable (M) Ahsan Ali -Petitioner
The State of U.P. & others -Respondents
Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.
Heard counsel and perused the record.
The petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned suspension order dated 23.12.2003 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) passed by respondent no. 4.
The case of the petitioner is that he was posted as Constable (M) in 8th Battalion P.A.C. at Bareilly. He proceeded on leave for 8 days with effect from 22.11.2003, which was sanctioned by respondent no. 4 as casual leave. The petitioner alleges to have further sought leave from the Commandant (respondent no. 4) w.e.f. 29.11.2003 by registered post. It is claimed by the petitioner that he was ill and remained under treatment firstly in District Hospital at Gorakhpur and thereafter under the treatment of Dr. S.K.Srivastava. It is also alleged that he had made a representation also to the Commandant (respondent no. 4) on 13.12.2003 informing that he had been advised rest by the doctors and prayed for extension of his leave from 13.12.2003 on medical ground. After expiry of his leave period, he reported for duty on 4.1.2004 along with another representation to the Commandant to sanction him medical leave from 29.11.2003 to 3.1.2004 and submitted fitness certificate issued by Dr. S.K.Srivastava. By the impugned order dated 23.12.2003 the petitioner has been suspended in contemplation of an enquiry.
The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the charges against the petitioner are not so serious in nature as to warrant suspension. He has placed reliance upon the decisions rendered in State of Orissa Vs B. Kumar Mohanti, 1994 S.C.C. 126, and Constable Yaar Ali Vs Superintendent of Police, 2001 (1) U.P.L.B.E.C. 356, and submits that the respondents may be directed to recall the suspension order of the petitioner and the enquiry against the petitioner may be concluded within a specified period of time.
This argument of the petitioner has no force. The petitioner is a member of disciplinary force and has to follow the rules and regulations. The petitioner has not followed the regulations regarding treatment in the police hospital and his absence may amount to desertion. In such circumstances it is not for this Court to record finding of facts which is the subject matter of domestic enquiry proceedings as is contemplated against the petitioner.
For the reasons stated above, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution with the impugned suspension order. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case particularly when the petitioner had informed the Commandant (respondent no. 4) about his medical treatment at the District Hospital, Gorakhpur, it is directed that the enquiry proceedings against the petitioner may be brought to its logical end within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him by the petitioner. The petitioner undertakes to co-operate in the enquiry proceedings and will not seek any adjournment. The enquiry will be concluded within a period of one month.
With the aforesaid direction this writ petition is disposed of finally.
Let a certified copy of this order be made available to the learned counsel for the petitioner within three days on payment of usual charges.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.