Surya Narain Singh vs State of U.P. and Others

S.P. Mehrotra and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.—The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the Petitioner, inter alia, praying for quashing the order dated 10.10.1986 (Annexure - 6 to the writ petition) passed by the Superintendent of Police, Bijnor (Respondent No. 2), the order dated 28.2.1990 (not filed) wrongly mentioned as order dated 30.11.1988 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Moradabad Region, Moradabad (Respondent No. 3), the order dated 26.2.1992 (Annexure - 8 to the writ petition) passed by the Inspector General of Police, Bareilly Zone, Bareilly (Respondent No. 4), the judgment and order dated 24.7.1995 (Annexure - 9 to the writ petition) passed by the State Public Services Tribunal (in short ''Tribunal'') and the order in review dated 10.9.2002 (Annexure - 10 to the writ petition) passed by the Tribunal.

It appears that the Petitioner was appointed in the year 1961 on the post of Constable, U.P. Police. When the Petitioner was posted in the district Bijnor, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and a charge-sheet dated 24.12.1985 was issued to him. The charge levelled against the Petitioner, in the said charge-sheet, was that while the Petitioner was posted in the Police Line, Bijnor he got a news-item published in the newspaper "Uttar Bharat Times, Bijnor" on 28.7.1985 without prior permission of the superior officers. The news-item which was allegedly got published by the Petitioner along with another Constable Baburam Pal was also reproduced in the charge-sheet. Copy of the charge-sheet has been filed as Annexure -1 to the writ petition.

In the enquiry conducted against the Petitioner in regard the aforesaid charge, a report dated 6.9.1986 was submitted by the Inquiry Officer holding that the charge against the Petitioner was established and recommending for dismissal of the Petitioner from police service. Thereupon a show-cause notice dated 15.9.1986 was issued by the Superintendent of Police, Bijnor (Respondent No. 2) to the Petitioner. The Petitioner submitted his reply dated 24.9.1986 to the said show-cause notice.

After considering the reply submitted by the Petitioner, the Superintendent of Police, Bijnor (Respondent No. 2) passed the order dated 10.10.1986 holding that the reply of the Petitioner was not satisfactory and directing for dismissal of the Petitioner from police service. Copy of the said order dated 10.10.1986 has been filed as Annexure - 6 to the writ petition.

It further transpires that the Petitioner thereafter filed an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Moradabad Region, Moradabad (Respondent No. 3). By the order dated 28.2.1990 the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Moradabad Region, Moradabad (Respondent No. 3) dismissed the said appeal filed by the Petitioner. It may be mentioned that the copy of the said order dated 28.2.1990 has not been filed by the Petitioner along with the petition.

Thereafter the Petitioner filed a revision before the Inspector General of Police, Bareilly Zone, Bareilly (Respondent No. 4). By the order dated 26.2.1992 (Annexure - 8 to the writ petition) the said revision filed by the Petitioner was dismissed by the Inspector General of Police, Bareilly Zone, Bareilly (Respondent No. 4).

The Petitioner thereafter approached the Tribunal by filing a Claim Petition, being Claim Petition No. 408/V/87. The Tribunal by its judgment and order dated 24.7.1995 dismissed the said claim petition filed by the Petitioner. The Petitioner thereafter filed a review petition which was also dismissed by Tribunal by the order dated 10.9.2002 (Annexure - 10 to the writ petition). The Petitioner thereafter has filed the present writ petition claiming the relief as mentioned above.

We have heard Sri v. Singh, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the record.

It is submitted by Sri v. Singh, learned Counsel for the Petitioner that as despite repeated representations made by the Petitioner regarding various irregularities being committed in Police Line, Bijnor nothing was done by the superior officers in the matter, the Petitioner with another Constable Baburam Pal was compelled to get the news-item published in the newspaper, in the circumstances, the punishment of dismissal awarded to the Petitioner is disproportionate. Sri v. Singh, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has further submitted that copy of the enquiry report dated 6.9.1986 was not provided to the Petitioner.

We have considered the submissions made by Sri v. Singh, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and we find ourselves unable to accept the same.

Whereas the second submission of Sri v. Singh, learned Counsel for the Petitioner regarding non-supply of the copy of the enquiry report dated 6.9.1986, it is noteworthy that after the submission of the enquiry report dated 6.9.1986, a show cause notice dated 15.9.1986 was issued to the Petitioner by the Superintendent of Police, Bijnor (Respondent No. 2). The Petitioner submitted his reply to the said show cause notice. No. grievance was raised by the Petitioner in his reply dated 24.9.1986 regarding the non-supply of the enquiry report dated 6.9.1986. Sri v. Singh, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has also not been able to show any averment made in the writ petition regarding non supply of the enquiry report dated 6.9.1986.

It is noteworthy that the Petitioner challenged the dismissal order in appeal and thereafter in revision. At No. stage the Petitioner appears to have raised grievance in regard to non supply of the enquiry report dated 6.9.1986.

In the circumstances, we are of the view that the submission made by Sri v. Singh, learned Counsel for the Petitioner is not correct.

As regards the first submission made by Sri v. Singh, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, it is not disputed that the Petitioner along with another Constable Baburam Pal got the news-item published in the newspaper. The perusal of the contents of the news-item shows that various allegations were made against the superior officers in the Police Department. It is not disputed that No. prior permission was taken by the Petitioner before getting the news-item published.

Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the Petitioner being a member of the Police Force committed a gross indiscipline by getting the news-item published. The punishment of dismissal awarded to the Petitioner cannot be said to be disproportionate on the facts and circumstances of the case. The punishment is not such as shocks the conscience of the Court

In view of above, we are of the opinion that Claim Petition filed by the Petitioner before the Tribunal has rightly been dismissed by the Tribunal.

The present writ petition filed by the Petitioner lacks merit. It is accordingly dismissed.