Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MAHABIR PRASAD DIXIT versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Mahabir Prasad Dixit v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 49309 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 16346 (19 September 2006)

 

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

Reserved

Civil Misc. Writ  petition No.  49309  of  2005

Mahabir Prasad Dixit

Versus

State of U.P. and others

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J.

Policing the Police is the issue involved in the present writ petition. Face of Ghaziabad Police was sought to be shown by Star News Channel on 10.02.2006 by airing programme captioned as "Operation Yamraj", wherein police personnel of District Ghaziabad were shown indulging in activities not befitting their continuance in U.P. Police Force. Five police personnel of Ghaziabad District whose names figured along with petitioner were: Amar Singh Yadav Inspector, Anil Kumar Samaniya Sub-Inspector, Satya Pal Singh Sub-Inspector and Mahabir Singh S.I. (M). First Information Report was lodged on 10.02.2006 at Police Station Kavi Nagar by Circle Officer, City II, Ghaziabad, which was registered as case crime No. 53 of 2006, under Sections 13 (1) D/2 and 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In the said complaint three persons, viz., Satya Pal Singh, Mahabir Singh and Anil Kumar Samanaiya, were named. Each one of the incumbent was placed under suspension. Satya Pal Singh was the first person, who approached Lucknow Bench of this Court through a writ petition, wherein following order was passed on 03.03.2006:

"The order appears to have been passed in non application of mind and immediately after exhibition of news without verifying the allegation levelled against a Govt. Servant."

"At the outset, learned Standing Counsel has raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the w. p. the petitioner has submitted that he has already represented against the impugned order to the appointing authority in the Govt. seeking redressal, accordingly, the W.P. is maintainable at Lucknow. However, this question shall be considered on the next date of listing."

Accordingly, the execution, implementation and operation of the order dated 10/2/06, passed by the O.P. No. 5, contained in Annexure No. 1 to the W.P. shall remain stayed till further orders."

Sd/-

Rakesh Sharma, J.

3/3/06."

Suspension order of other incumbents was also challenged by preferring writ petition No.11935 of 2006, Anil Samaniya vs. State of U.P. and others, writ petition No.14773 of 2006, Mahabir Prasad Dixit vs. State of U.P. and others and writ petition No.22260 of 2006, Mahaveer Singh vs. State of U.P. and others. In these writ petitions also this Court passed interim orders, which are being quoted below:

"Civil Misc, Writ Petition No. 11935 of 2006

" From the order impugned in the present writ petition,  this Court is  prima facie satisfied that the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, had failed to apply his mind to the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 before passing the order of suspension against the petitioner or else such order has been deliberately passed in order to enable the petitioner to obtain suitable order from this Court. Neither the allegations, which have been reported in Star News Channel, has been mentioned nor it has been mentioned  as to whether any departmental is contemplated or is being proceeded with. The nature of allegations against the petitioner has also not been disclosed in the impugned order.

Before passing any further orders, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, is directed to file his personal affidavit for explaining the manner , in which the impugned order of suspension has been passed.

Such affidavit must be filed within three weeks.

List on 21st March, 2006.

The petitioner has made out a prima facie case for grant of an interim order.

Till the next date of listing operation of the order dated 10th February, 2006, passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, shall remain stayed.

It is understood that if the affidavit is not filed by the Senior superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad on the next date fixed, he shall remain present before this court with all relevant records.

A certified copy of this order shall be issued to the learned Standing Counsel by tomorrow i.e. 28th February,2006.  

27,02.2006

Sushil/11935-06"

"Civil Misc, Writ Petition No. 14773 of 2006

" Connect with writ Petition No.11935 of 2006.

From the order impugned in the present writ petition,  this Court is  prima facie satisfied that the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, had failed to apply his mind to the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 before passing the order of suspension against the petitioner or else such order has been deliberately passed in order to enable the petitioner to obtain suitable order from this Court. Neither the allegations, which have been reported in Star News Channel, has been mentioned nor it has been mentioned  as to whether any departmental is contemplated or is being proceeded with. The nature of allegations against the petitioner has also not been disclosed in the impugned order.

Before any further orders are passed, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, is directed to file his personal affidavit explaining the circumstances, in which the impugned order of suspension has been passed.

Such affidavit must be filed 21st March, 2006.

List on 21st March, 2006.

The petitioner has made out a prima facie case for grant of an interim order.

Till the next date of listing operation of the order dated 10th February, 2006, passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, shall remain stayed.

It is understood that if the affidavit is not filed by the Senior superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad on the next date fixed, he shall remain present before this court with all relevant records.

A certified copy of this order shall be issued to the learned Standing Counsel by tomorrow i.e. 28th February,2006.  

10.03.2006

Sushil/14773-06"

W.P. No.2260 of 2006

"S.A. filed today be kept on records.

List and connect with writ petition No. 11935 of 2006.

In view of the interim order passed therein against the concerned, the petitioner is also entitled to an interim order on parity. Accordingly, till the next date of listing the order dated 10.02.2006 shall remain stayed."

Interim orders passed in writ petition Nos. 11935 and 14773 of 2006, show that Court was of the prima facie opinion that Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, had failed to apply his mind to the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 before passing the order of suspension or else such order had been deliberately passed in order to enable the petitioner to obtain suitable order from this Court. In pith and substance prima facie opinion of the Court was that there were deliberate attempts on the part of the Senior Superintendent of Police in not taking valid and fair action against the incumbents whose faces figured on the television screen of the Nation.

In criminal case final report is alleged to have been submitted on 15.04.2006 by S.P. City, Ghaziabad. Final report has yet not been accepted by District and Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad and the matter is still subjudice there, as such no comment is being made on the investigation which had been carried out. Preliminary inquiry was also set up. One Asfaq Ahmed, Superintendent of Police (Traffic), Ghaziabad, was entrusted with the job of submitting preliminary inquiry report. The said Inquiry Officer recommended for taking action against Anil Kumar Samaniya, Stayapal Singh and Amar Singh Yadav in terms of Rule 14 (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. Qua petitioner and Mahaveer Singh, it was mentioned that action under Rule 14 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 be taken. Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, on 21.06.2006 directed to conduct inquiry against five delinquent incumbents under Rule 14 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991, and departmental inquiry was entrusted to one Ajay Kumar Singh, Superintendent of Police (Rural). Thereafter, the said Inquiry Officer issued notice on 26.06.2006 to all the five incumbents for attending the inquiry, which was to be undertaken on 02.07.2006 for action, and again thereafter notice was issued on 03.07.2006 for receiving charge sheet on 12.07.2006. Thereafter, it appears that entire records were transmitted to Senior Prosecuting Officer, Ghaziabad, for his opinion. Opinion was given on 15.07.2006, and thereafter based on the said opinion, Superintendent of Police (Rural) has mentioned that action against Anil Kumar Samaniya, Satyapal Singh and Amar Singh be taken under Rule 14 (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991, as there was no oral or documentary evidence available to substantiate the charge under Rule 14 (1) of the said Rules and as against Mahabir Prasad Dixit and Mahaveer Singh on the basis of C.D. enough material was available to proceed under Rule 14 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. Thereafter, Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad on 27.07.2006 against Anil Kumar Samaniya, Amar Singh Yadav and Satyapal Singh has issued show cause notice under Rule 14 (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991, as to why they be not punished by withholding an amount equal to their salary for 30 days. As far as petitioner is concerned, proceeding under Rule 14 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 has been sought to be undertaken. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed.

On presentation of writ petition, Sri Vijay Gautam, learned counsel for petitioner, contended that on the same set of evidence petitioner is being charge-sheeted under Rule 14 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991, whereas on same set of evidence minor penalty has been proposed, as such discriminatory treatment has been meted to his client, and further rule of fair play has been violated with impunity. On this argument being advanced and seeing the seriousness of the allegations levelled against men in dress, this Court called for original records, and original records have been produced.  

Facts of the case disclose that in string operation which was carried out in the name of "Operation Yanmraj", all these police officials were shown indulging in activities of which no one in civilized society can even comprehend from a man in dress, who are considered to be protectors of the civilized society. Their misdeeds were sought to be exposed by Fourth Pillar of the Democracy, i. e., Media, which as of now is the eye and ear of the society, in which we are living. On the said exposer being made, it has come in evidence in preliminary inquiry that these persons were found in indulging in the activities alleged to have been shown on T.V. screen, and it is not all their case that faces which were shown on T.V. screen were not their faces. In this background, prima facie to say that there is no evidence substantiating the same, would be nothing but to shield these persons, who have been indulging in illegal activities, which was purported to have been shown on T.V. screen. The case would have been different in case C.D. which was produced was tampered or doctored C.D. or in case petitioner and others had come with the case that it were not their faces shown on the screen. In the present case prima facie Senior Superintendent of Police has merely tried to cover up the things, inasmuch as, once preliminary inquiry report was submitted, and it was resolved to take proceedings under Rule 14 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 against each one of the five incumbents, then under what circumstances, opinion of Senior Prosecuting Officer was sought for. Prima facie, it appears that manipulated advice was called for to save three persons by imposing minor penalty and let them scot-free. The Senior Superintendent of Police prima facie, in the present case, has totally failed to carry out onerous duty which is enjoined upon him while dealing with subordinate staff in the matter of administration, and to the contrary, prima facie attempt has been made to pave the way so that guilty persons may go scot-free. Entire matter requires re-examination. It would be appropriate to give opportunity to Senior Superintendent of Police and three incumbents against whom proceeding under Rule 14 (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 has been sought to be initiated for deduction of 30 days' salary, to file their personal affidavit before this Court  by next date fixed. This Court is conscious of the fact that imposing of penalty and maintenance of administration and discipline is within the domain of the Senior Superintendent of Police, but when there is prima facie failure in performing and discharging duties and action is prima facie speaking for itself on the face of record, then Court would not fail to discharge its duty by looking into the matter and see that appropriate action is taken in accordance with law. Confidence of public has to be reposed and prima facie such type of elements in Police Force cannot be permitted to be retained, in case their conduct is such, as is reflected on the screen till they clear themselves of the charges. It is also equally true that their exit from service has to take place in accordance with law after giving full opportunity to them so that they may have no grudge. Consequently, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, as far as petitioner is concerned, qua him proceeding has been rightly initiated, and there is no fault in the same, but qua other three incumbents who have been left, qua them as to whether regular disciplinary proceeding is being undertaken or not, will be decided after after exchange of affidavits, and in this regard Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad is directed to file his personal affidavit. Senior Superintendent of Police shall inform Amar Singh Yadav, Anil Kumar Samaniya and Satyapal Singh that they have also to file their personal affidavit, by the next date fixed. This Court has expressed its displeasure when suspension order was stayed, till these five incumbents are not cleared of charges against them, all these incumbents should be accorded placement in Police Lines, and there should not be any substantive placement qua them till they clear themselves of the charges levelled against them. However, full salary shall be ensured to them, and same shall abide by validity of suspension order, which is engaging attention of this Court, and further order to be passed by this Court.

List this case for further hearing on 31.10.2006.

Let a copy of this order be supplied to Sri C.B. Yadav, learned Chief Standing Counsel, within 48 hours, for follow-up action.

19.09.2006

SRY

.


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.