Ram Autar Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh and others

D.S. Sinha, J.—Heard Shri Vijai Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri H.P. Tripathi, learned standing counsel of the State of U. P., representing the respondent Nos. 1. 2, 3 and 6.

On being found guilty of the charges of abusing and misbehaving with his superior officers under the influence of liquor, the petitioner, an erstwhile constable of U. P. Police, was dismissed from service by means of the order dated 17th May, 1988, a copy whereof is Annexurc-5 to the writ petition.

The dismissal order dated 17th May, 1988, was challenged by the petitioner by filing a claim petition before the U. P. State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow, which has been dismissed by the order and judgment dated 3rd March, 1997, a copy whereof is appended to the petition as Annexure-6, impugned in this petition.

The grounds of challenge to the dismissal order before the Tribunal were and before this Court are that the order was passed without following due procedure of law ; that adequate opportunity for defending himself was not given to the petitioner ; and that the order was passed without application of mind by the punishing authority.

In the context of the above grounds of challenge, the Tribunal has recorded the following findings :

"From the perusal of relevant file which was summoned, it is clear that departmental enquiry was conducted properly and witnesses were examined. The petitioner was also given adequate opportunity to defend himself. There is nothing on record to prove that there was any violation of principles of natural justice or of any provision of Police Act or Police Regulation. A copy of the enquiry report was served upon him along with show cause notice dated 9.10.1987. As such it was not essential for the punishing authority to give details of the enquiry report in the punishment order. The punishing authority has applied his mind and had taken into consideration the replies of the petitioner while passing punishment order which is clear from the perusal of punishment order dated 17.5.1988 (Annexure-1). There is no illegality in the punishment order."

In view of the above finding of the Tribunal, which has not been demonstrated to be erroneous in any manner, in the opinion of the Court, the impugned order and judgment is not liable to be interfered with.

The learned counsel of the petitioner also submits that this Court may intervene inasmuch as the punishment awarded to the petitioner is not commensurate to his guilt. It cannot be gainsaid that the question of quantum of punishment has to be decided by the punishing authority ; and that this Court in exercise of its extra-ordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not interfere with the impugned order on the ground of adequacy or inadequacy of the punishment. State Bank of India and Others Vs. Samarendra Kishore Endow and Another, and U. P. State Road Transport Corpn. and others v. A.K Parul JT 1998 (8) SC 404).

All told, the petition lacks substance. It is dismissed summarily.