Sudhir Singh vs State of U.P. and Others

Shabihul Hasnain, J.—Heard Sri S.S.P. Gupta, learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned standing counsel for the State-Respondents.

The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner for quashing the orders dated 27.12.2006 and 7.4.2007, passed by Respondent No. 4 (Annexures-1 and 6 to the writ petition), respectively.

The Petitioner was selected on the post of Police Constable on 18.11.2006. The Petitioner was sent for training, but while he was undergoing the same, his selection was cancelled by the S.S.P., Gorakhpur-Respondent No. 4 on 27.12.2006. The order of the S.S.P. has been challenged in this writ petition and has been annexed as Annexure-1.

From the perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the ground for passing the impugned order is that the Petitioner allegedly concealed the fact that prior to the selection. N.C.R. No. 77 of 2005 u/s 323/504/506, I.P.C. was registered against him at P.S. Raunapar, district Azamgarh. It is alleged that despite the N.C.R. being registered he did not disclose the information before the authority, while making the affidavit as per, requirement at the time of his selection. The S.S.P. has come to the conclusion that the Police Constable who is supposed to look after the law and order should be a man of character and any concealment of fact for the purposes of getting a job renders him totally incompetent to carry out the job.

The Petitioner immediately filed a Writ Petition No. 585 of 2007, on the ground that he had no knowledge of the aforesaid N.C.R. and as such he was not in a position to depose about the fact which was beyond his knowledge. Further, it was contended in the writ petition that the order of termination has been passed unilaterally without giving any opportunity of hearing. This Court decided the case on 8.1.2007 and directed the opposite parties to reconsider the matter looking into the aspect of "knowledge" about the N.C.R., but the representation was again rejected in an arbitrary and cursory manner without application of mind.

The rejection order dated 7.4.2004 as well as the original order of termination dated 27.11.2006 has been challenged in the present writ petition. The main argument of learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the Petitioner was sent for training by the authorities after proper selection. Later, on verification of the documents as well as the affidavit filed by the selectees, it was found that the aforesaid N.C.R. was pending against the Petitioner. The authorities took a serious view and even without giving any opportunity abruptly terminated the services of Petitioner. The argument once again is the same that the Petitioner did not have any knowledge and there is no case of concealment and misconduct on the part of the Petitioner. Hence, the termination order was bad.

The learned Counsel has drawn the attention of the Court towards Annexure-5 which is the report by the Circle Officer (CO.), police station Basgaon, Gorakhpur which clearly states that although there was a N.C.R. against the Petitioner, but it was never investigated by any police officer. No proceeding even under Sections 107 and 116, Code of Criminal Procedure have been initiated against the accused persons. Another report was filed by S.O. police station Raunapar, Azamgarh which is contained as Annexurer-4 to the writ petition. This also reiterates the fact that the case was never investigated. The learned Counsel on the basis of these documents has argued that there was no knowledge about the N.C.R. The Petitioner was never called to any police station. He was never questioned. The police never visited his house nor any member of family was questioned. In such a situation a common man cannot have any methodology by which he could have found out about the N.C.R. pending in Thana Raunapar, district Azamgarh. The affidavit was deposed by the Petitioner with complete sanctity and responsibility. No fault can be attributed to the Petitioner if some facts appear to be contrary in the contents of the affidavit which were beyond the knowledge of the deponent.

A counter-affidavit has been filed by the learned standing counsel, who has argued that the action of the S.S.P. is absolutely correct. As the affidavit was found to be false hence the decision of the S.S.P., Gorakhpur directing to cancel the Petitioner''s service is valid.

But, since the counter-affidavit does not disclose anything about the "knowledge" hence cannot be relied upon for any practical or useful purpose. The moot question in the writ petition is about the "knowledge" of the N.C.R. to the Petitioner.

The rejoinder-affidavit has been filed reiterating the arguments and the facts stated in the writ petition and it has been argued by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the finding recorded by the S.S.P. that the Petitioner is an irresponsible person and cannot be posted as constable is totally baseless as the S.S.P. had no material before him to reach such a conclusion. A cursory remark by such a senior officer, while deciding the fate of a person, cannot be appreciated by this Court. Such a decision which goes to the root of the matter and can decide the career of a young man who is otherwise qualified and come through selection should not be loosely taken by the officers. The Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 27.12.2006 and 7.4.2007 cannot be sustained. Both these orders are quashed.

The opposite parties are directed to immediately take back the Petitioner in service as if no order of termination was passed against him because from the very beginning incorrect decision was taken on the basis of incorrect facts. It has been informed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner had completed his training by that time. The Petitioner will be reinstated in his job with immediate effect. He should be given posting forthwith as would have been done after his training.

With these directions, the writ petition is finally allowed.