Kurban Ali vs State of U.P. and others

Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard Counsel for the parties.

The petitioner - a constable in police force, was assigned duty alongwith other police personnel to produce accused Guddu, Ahmad, Abdul Gaffar, Goonga, Ghanshyam, Manoj, Meraj, Arif and Kaushlesh in the Court of C.J.M., Allahabad. It is alleged that one of the accused namely Goonga absconded from their custody in court.

An enquiry was set up against the petitioner, in which enquiry report was submitted on 3.12.2004. Absconded accused Goonga was however later on arrested by a police team of which petitioner was also a member. In the enquiry, the petitioner submitted his reply that absconded accused Goonga was arrested by him with other police persons.

A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling upon his reply as to why adverse entry and punishment be not awarded to him in accordance with U.P. Police Officer of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991, to which he replied. His reply having not been found satisfactory, impugned order dated 27.3.2007 was passed by the S.S.P., Allahabad withholding his 15 days'' salary. Against the aforesaid punishment, the petitioner filed appeal and then revision which have also been dismissed vide order dated 10.1.2008 & 18.4.2008 by Deputy Inspector General and Inspector General of Police, Allahabad respectively. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of these orders.

Referring to paragraph Nos. 2, 3 & 4 of the petitioner''s reply appended as annexure No. 2 to the petition, contention of the counsel for petitioner is that reply of the petitioner has not been considered by the authority.

It is apparent from the aforesaid paragraphs of his reply relied upon by the counsel for petitioner, that he had been very negligent in discharge of his official duties. While taking the aforesaid ten accused to the lock up, they left behind accused Goonga in the Court room without any police personnel to keep- a watch on him. All police personnel deputed to produce the aforesaid accused in Court are equally responsible. The subsequent arrest of absconded accused Goonga, will not absolve the petitioner from the charge of negligence in duty, on account of which Goonga managed to escape from their custody. The punishment awarded to the petitioner i.e. withholding of 15 days'' salary, in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be said to be excessive rather it appears that the authorities have adopted a lenient view in the matter. In fact, the petitioner ought to have been awarded a major punishment in this matter. Had the police personnel guarding the aforesaid accused been vigilant, incident of escaping the accused from police custody would not have taken place.

Leniency while awarding punishment to members of police force, is not suitable to the police organisation as such incident tarnishes the image of entire police force.

For the reasons stated above, the petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed with observation that respondent No. 4- S.S.P., Allahabad may review his order and consider the question of imposing punishment proportionate to the gravity of charge against the petitioner taking into account seriousness of the misconduct, laxity and dereliction of duties after giving notice to him in accordance with law. No order as to costs.