Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SATYENDRA KUMAR versus DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ALLAHABAD

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Satyendra Kumar v. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Allahabad - WRIT - C No. 38620 of 2000 [2005] RD-AH 7190 (8 December 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

Court No.30

Writ Petition No.38620 of 2000

Satyendra Kumar Vs.  Dy. Inspector General of Police (Establishment), Allahabad.  

Hon'ble V.C.Misra,J

Sri B.K. Srivastava, Sri Dhiraj Srivastava, learned counsels for the petitioner and learned standing counsel are present.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging his termination order dated 5.8.2000 passed behind the back of the petitioner without affording him any opportunity of hearing.

The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner was appointed vide appointment letter dated 29.12.1998 on the compassionate ground, since his father who was posted as a Head Constable in the U.P. Police Service, district Saharanpur, had died during service.  Thereafter, he completed his training and continued to remain in service till 5.8.2000. When he was terminated from his service by impugned order dated 5.8.2000 (Annexure No.7 to the writ petition) on the basis of provisions of the U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975 (in short the Rules, 1975).

Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and looked into the record of the case. During the training period of the petitioner, a complaint was received against him that a Criminal Case No.129A of 1983, under Sections 395/397/435 I.P.C. was instituted which was pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut and another trial case no.73 of  1995, under Sections 302/394/397 and 120B I.P.C.,  was registered against the petitioner and he had been confined in jail for one year.  A preliminary enquiry was instituted and enquiry report was submitted by the Inspector General of Police, Meerut, Zone, Meerut.  Admittedly, no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner before removing him from services.  No reason, whatsoever, has been assigned and shelter has been taken under the provisions of the Rules, 1975.  In the rejoinder affidavit, it has been stated that the petitioner has been acquitted from the criminal charges in both the cases and the copy of the judgment and order of both the cases have been filed as R.A.I and R.A.2 to the writ petition, respectively.   Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that no appeal has been filed to challenge the said judgment of acquittal, which have become final, and there could be no better example of not adhering to the basic principal of natural justice for providing an opportunity of hearing before terminating the services of the petitioner.  It is settled law that even in case of temporary service, if the services of the petitioner are to be terminated or removed on the ground of allegation calling for punitive action then an opportunity of hearing must be provided before passing the said impugned order.

On the above said facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 5.8.2000 (Annexure No.7 to the writ petition) terminating the service of the petitioner is hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be reinstated with continuity in service.  Since the operation of impugned order had already been stayed by this court vide order dated 3.8.2002.  The respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to attend his duty and continue to pay his salary from month to month with entire arrears due, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

No order as to costs.

Dt.8.12.2005

pkc/8


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.