Bhagat Ram vs U.P. Public Services Tribunal & others

Manoj K. Tiwari, J.

Petitioner was serving as Constable in Civil Police, Dehradun in the year 1989. He was dismissed from service vide order dated 31.12.1990 passed

by Superintendent of Police, Dehradun on the charge of unauthorized absence. Against the said dismissal order, petitioner filed a departmental appeal,

which was dismissed by Deputy Inspector General of Police, Garhwal Range vide order dated 21.05.1992. Petitioner challenged his dismissal before

learned Public Service Tribunal, Uttar Pradesh by filing claim petition No. 147/V/1991, which was dismissed by learned Tribunal vide judgment dated

28.08.1995. Petitioner’s application, seeking review of the said judgment, was rejected by learned Tribunal on 22.01.1998.

This writ petition was filed before Allahabad High Court in the year 2000 in which challenge is made to the dismissal order, order passed by the

appellate authority and the judgment rendered by learned Tribunal. This writ petition was transferred to this Court in terms of Section 35 of U.P. Re-

organisation Act.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The charge against the petitioner was that he had remained unauthorisedly absent w.e.f. 12.05.1989 for which he was put under suspension vide

order dated 21.08.1989. Thereafter a charge-sheet was issued against him which was sent to petitioner’s home address through ‘Special

Messenger and the same was served on 12.06.1990. However, petitioner did not participate in the inquiry proceedings. Sri Rajendra Singh â€" Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Dehardun, who held the inquiry, has stated in the inquiry report that several letters were sent through ‘Special

Messenger’ to the home address of the petitioner, however, petitioner did not respond to any of those letters. Accordingly, the Inquiry Officer

returned a finding that petitioner is guilty of the charge of unauthorized absence and the disciplinary authority (Superintendent of Police, Dehradun)

issued a show cause notice and ultimately punishment of dismissal was imposed upon him (petitioner).

In his departmental appeal, petitioner had raised the plea of harassment at the hands of Officers of C.B.I. and had contended that due to the mental

stress caused by the harassment, he fell ill. The appellate authority dismissed the departmental appeal by holding that if petitioner was ill then he should

have himself treated in the Police Hospital or in the absence of Police Hospital, he should have got himself treated in a Government Hospital with

intimation to the Superintendent of Police, Dehradun. The appellate authority further held that petitioner was given adequate opportunity of defending

himself by the Inquiry Officer.

Before learned Tribunal it was contended by the petitioner that he served on deputation in the office of CBI, Dehradun before his posting in Police

Station Kotwali Dehradun in the year 1989 and while serving in CBI, he had filed an affidavit before Hon’ble Supreme Court against the Officers

of CBI, due to which the CBI Officers got annoyed. Petitioner had also referred to one order dated 24.11.1990 passed by Additional Superintendent

of Police, Dehradun, whereby petitioner was censured for writing directly to Hon’ble Prime Minister. Learned Tribunal rightly came to the

conclusion that annoyance of C.B.I. Officers or the conduct of the petitioner, writing directly to Hon’ble Prime Minister, has nothing to do with the

punishment imposed upon the petitioner.

The fact of the matter is that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, but he neither submitted reply to the charge nor

participated in the inquiry. The Inquiry Officer has submitted a detailed report wherein the efforts made by the Inquiry Officer to ensure presence of

the petitioner have been narrated. The finding recorded by Inquiry Officer is based on material on record, which cannot be said to be perverse.

Paragraph 382 of the Police Regulation provides that in case of illness, a police personnel is required to get himself treated in a Police Hospital and

in case Police Hospital is not available then he should get himself treated in a Government Hospital. The medical certificates, produced by the

petitioner before learned Tribunal, were from a private doctor. It was further contended before learned Tribunal that punishment imposed is

disproportionate to the charge. This argument was repelled by learned Tribunal by considering the conduct of the petitioner, as he remained absent

from duties continuously from 12.05.1989 to 20.12.1990. Learned Tribunal further held that reasonable opportunity of defending himself was given to

the petitioner and he himself is to be blamed for not participating in the disciplinary inquiry. Accordingly, the claim petition filed by the petitioner was

dismissed by learned Tribunal.

It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that punishment imposed upon the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate to the nature and

gravity of the charge.

This contention cannot be accepted for the simple reason that scope of judicial review in these matters is limited. The Court should not interfere

with the administrator’s decision unless it is illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or is shocking to the conscience of the court, in the

sense it is in definance of logic of moral standards. In other words, Court should not go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator

open to him and the court should not substitute its decision to that of the administrator.

Petitioner is a member of disciplined force. As member of disciplined force, petitioner was expected to follow the rules and orders of his superior

officers. Petitioner was required to report back for duties on 12.05.1989, but he did not resume duties till his dismissal i.e. 31.12.1990.

For the aforesaid reason, there is no scope for interference with the judgment rendered by learned Tribunal. The writ petition accordingly fails and

is hereby dismissed.