Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JANARDAN MISRA versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Janardan Misra v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - A No. 14337 of 2000 [2005] RD-AH 634 (4 March 2005)

 

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 OF ALLAHABAD

Judgement reserved on 7.12.2004

Judgement delivered on 4.3.2005

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14337 of 2000

Janardan Misra

versus

State of U.P. & others

Connected with

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 49574 of 2000

Janardan Misra

versus

State of U.P. & others

Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani, J.

Heard Sri A.P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel.

The petitioner was recruited as Constable in Armed Police. During the relevant period he  was working as Head Constable, 53. A.P., Police Lines, Varanasi. A charge sheet was served upon him alleging that on 4.12.1994 he left the place of duty and under the influence of liquor committed acts of indiscipline in Barrack No. 6, Police Lines. He was using filthy language eased himself in barracks  and was found  abusing the officers, and  thereafter slipped away to avoid medical examination .

The petitioner denied the charges and alleged malafides. He was allowed to cross examine witnesses and led evidence in defence. By an order  dated 17.7.1995, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi accepted the finding of the enquiry officer,  and punished the petitioner by reverting him to the  original pay scale for a period of three years. The appeal  was  dismissed  by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Varanasi Region, Varanasi on 12.2.1998 and the  revision was dismissed by the Inspector General of Police, Varanasi Region, Varanasi on 12.9.1999. Aggrieved the petitioner has  filed writ petition No. 14337 of 2000 in which counter  and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged.

During the pendency to the writ petition the Superintendent of Police, Varanasi passed an order dated 4.11.2000 to retire the petitioner from service in public interest. The order of compulsory retirement was

2

passed on the recommendation of the Committee consisting of Superintendent of Police, Maharajganj and Additional Superintendent of Police, Deoria. By writ petition No. 49574 of 2000, the petitioner has challenged the order of compulsory retirement.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not medically examined. Proper enquiry was not held nor any charge sheet was given to the petitioner for awarding major penalty. The order is thus violative of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India.  With regard to compulsory retirement, it is contended  that the entire service record of the petitioner was not examined. The  order is arbitrary, illegal and has not been made  in public interest. An order of compulsory retirement under Fundamental Rules 56 (C) of  Handbook Volume-II Part II to IV, amounts to a punishment and  that the record does not demonstrate that the petitioner had become a deadwood or that it  was in public interest to weed him out of service. He further submits  relying upon the judgements of this Court in  Devi Saran Sharma vs. District Magistrate/Zila Adhikari, meerut and others, 2000 (1) UPLBEC 582;  Vijai Kumar Jain, Executive Engineer in R.E.S. vs. State of U.P. and others, (2000) 2 UPLBEC 1508; Bhoop Narain Tiwari and others vs. Union of India and others (2002) 1 UPLBEC 35  that there was no such material available on record which may have justified the opinion of the Screening Committee to compulsorily retire petitioner from service.

I have examined the order dated 17.7.1995 by which the petitioner was punished  by reverting him to the original pay scale for three years. The petitioner was issued a show cause notice to which he submitted his reply. The enquiry officer gave full and adequate opportunity of defence to the petitioner  and found that he committed serious acts of indiscipline and had run away, when  ordered to be taken for medical examined. The prosecution witness supported the allegations that at the time of the incident he was under the influence of liquor. The petitioner was given adequate opportunity to adduce evidence in defence. The  Head Constable Major Radhey Mohan Singh did not support the prosecution, but then there was oral evidence of Shri Jagat Pal Singh, R.I.-II, which supported the   findings   in    the    preliminary    enquiry    that   the

3

petitioner had refused to subject himself for medical examination. The order  of punishment in my opinion is supported  by valid evidence and reasons. There is absolutely nothing on record to show that any relevant material was not considered by disciplinary authority,  or that his findings are perverse. The punishment is  not disproportionate to the charges.

Coming to the order of compulsory retirement the respondents have annexed the service record of the petitioners along with counter affidavit of Sri Kailsah Upadhyay, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Sadar), Kushi Nagar. From this record, I find that the petitioner was given a punishment  of stoppage of one increment by Superintendent of Police, Deoria on 26.7.1988. By an order dated 17.4.1991 the Superintendent of Police, Deoria found that the petitioner had committed acts of indiscipline in refusing to attend duties and to deposit the arms and that on 12.5.1990 he was found  quarrelling under the influence of liquor and was  warned to behave in future. On 8.12.1995 a censure entry was awarded to the petitioner by Superintendent of Police (Rural) Varanasi for failing to attend duties and remaining absent without any authority for 99 days beginning from 2.1.1993 to 11.4.1993.

In the year 1997 by an order dated 26.12.1997 the Superintendent of Police, Kushi Nagar awarded a censure entry to the petitioner for refusing to attend duties and to misbehaving with the Reserved Inspector. Again on 1.9.1999 the petitioner was given a censure entry for indiscipline and abusing officers under the influence of liquor. Lastly on 29.1.2000 once again the petitioner was punished by withholding one increment  for one year for refusing to attend duties on 14.9.1999.

These entries, are sufficient material to form an opinion with regard to conduct and character of the petitioner and his usefulness to the service. The fact that the petitioner was given a few appreciation letters  for preparing dishes and that he was given some rewards for cooking good food in the mess, is not sufficient or relevant material to contradict the opinion of the Screening Committee to retire petitioner in public interest. The petitioner may be a good cook but was not found to be a disciplined employee. I do not find that the judgements cited by the

4

petitioner help him in any manner. The law with regard to compulsory retirement is well settled. The order of compulsorily retirement has not been treated to be a  punishment. Where there is sufficient material available on record to show that it is not  in public interest to continue a Government servant after age of 50 years, the competent authority after screening the record can direct compulsory retirement. The  order in the present case was made in public interest and does not cause any stigma or amount to any punishment.

Both the writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Dt 4.3.2005

RKP/


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.