High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ram Narayan Sharma v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 11319 of 2004  RD-AH 1709 (20 July 2005)
Court No. 32
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11319 of 2004
Ram Narayan Sharma Vs. State of U.P. And others
Hon'ble Vikram Nath J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 20.12.2003, 23.9.2003 and 18.6.2003 passed by respondents 3, 2 and 4 respectively whereby the petitioner has been awarded punishment of placing at the minimum pay scale for the period of three years and statutory appeal and revision against the same have been dismissed.
The petitioner was charge sheeted for misconduct being negligent while taking jail inmate Rohtash from Muzaffarnagar to Saharanpur and back. The charge was that during the said journey the other constable Sudhir Kumar and accused Rohtash consumed liquor and other intoxicating drinks and on return only Sudhir Kumar reached the jail whereas the petitioner was absent. After preliminary inquiry the petitioner was suspended and a departmental inquiry under U.P. Police Officer of Subordinate Rank(Punishment and appeal Rules)1991 were initiated in which the Circle Officer who was appointed an Inquiry Officer, inquired into the charges and found both the constables, (petitioner and Sudhir Kumar) guilty of serious dereliction of duty. Based upon the said inquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority awarded punishment of placing the petitioner at the minimum pay scale for a period of three years. Petitioner preferred an appeal before DIG which was also rejected on 23.9.2003 holding that there was no irregularity in the inquiry proceeding. Further, the contention of the petitioner that the inquiry report is ex parte was also not accepted by the appellate authority in as much as the petitioner and Sudhir Kumar co-accused did not participate in the proceedings nor submitted any reply despite personal service of the charge sheet. This fact is not disputed that they had no knowledge of the charge sheet. Revision filed against the above two orders was also dismissed vide order dated 20.12.2003.
The contention of the petitioner is that as there is no finding either in the inquiry report or in the impugned orders that the petitioner had taken any intoxicating drinks holding the petitioner guilty and awarding punishment is not justified. This argument for the reason that the petitioner was accompanying the jail inmate Rohtash and it was his duty to check that either Rohtash or his co-constable Sudhir Kumar do not take any intoxicating drinks. Petitioner therefore failed in his duty and further more when Rohtash returned to the jail he was accompanied only by Sudhir Kumar and petitioner was absent as reported by jail Superintendent. This was also gross neglect of duty and responsibility cast on the petitioner.
In the circumstances, the punishment awarded to the petitioner cannot be said to be unjustified. I do not find any error in the order passed by the authority after enquiry. There is no merit in the petition.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.