High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Pooran Chandra v. Inspector General of Police & Others - WRIT - A No. 27858 of 2004  RD-AH 3391 (22 September 2005)
Court No. 26
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27858 Of 2004
Inspector General of Police,
P.A.C. Western Zone, Moradabad & others................................................Respondents
Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.
Heard counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel.
By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 31.3.1997 passed by the Inspector General of Police P.A.C. Western Zone, Moradabad rejecting the representation of the petitioner filed against the appellate order dated 26.8.1996 passed by the Deputy Inspector General P.A.C. Agra by which order the appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 3.1.1996 of the Commandant P.A.C. 15th Bn. P.A.C. Agra was rejected. Proceedings under U.P. Subordinate Ranks Police Officers ( Punishment & Appeal ) Rules, 1991 were initiated. The petitioner was given a show cause notice and an inquiry was also held in which statements of certain officers and employees were recorded. The Commandant found three allegations of indiscipline proved against the petitioner and passed minor punishment of censure. Petitioner's appeal and the revision against the said order was rejected by the Deputy Inspector General P.A.C. Agra and the Inspector General of Police P.A.C. Western Zone, Moradabad. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the order contended that no inquiry was held and the petitioner was not given an opportunity.
I have considered the submission and perused the record.
From the order of the Commandant it is clear that the inquiry was conducted in which inquiry the petitioner was also called and the statements of witnesses were recorded . The petitioner was made aware of the allegations. The petitioner himself also filed a copy of the grounds of appeal submitted to the appellate authority. From the ground no. 1 of the appeal it is clear that the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 27.12.1995 against the show cause notice dated 11.12.1995. Petitioner having been given show cause notice to which he also replied, the submission of the petitioner that no opportunity was given, cannot be accepted. All the three authorities have recorded concurrent finding of fact that the charges of indiscipline have been proved against the petitioner. One of the allegations against the petitioner was that he occupied the government quarter in Block No. 84/3 which was allotted to another constable Raj Kumar Gautam without there being any allotment order and on displeasure being shown by the authorities he himself vacated the said quarter. All the three authorities have recorded findings to the effect that all the charges of indiscipline were proved against the petitioner. I do not find any infirmity in the order warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, only punishment of censure which is minor punishment , has been awarded against the petitioner which do not warrant any interference.
The writ petition lacks merit and is summarily dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.