Taramati Devi vs State of U.P.

Rajan Roy, J.—This writ petition was filed originally for the following reliefs:

(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to conduct a thorough and proper investigation into the disappearance of petitioner''s husband Shri Sakaldeep Singh from the custody of police hospital, Kanpur;

(ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to award compensation for the loss caused to the petitioner due to illegal, arbitrary and callus action of the respondents resulting into disappearance of the petitioner''s husband Shri Sakaldeep Singh from the Police Hospital Kanpur;

(iii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner for appointment on suitable post in the police department;

It was dismissed by this Court on the ground of unexplained laches vide judgment and order dated 4th March, 2009, which was set aside in appeal and the matter was remitted to this Court by the Supreme Court vide its judgment and order dated 5th April, 2010 passed in Civil Appeal No. 2996 of 2010, the relevant extracts of which are quoted herein-below:

We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. In our view, the High Court committed serious error by refusing to order investigation into disappearance of the appellant''s husband. It appears that the Division Bench of the High Court was unduly influenced by the fact that the appellant''s husband had been dismissed from service vide order dated 12th July, 2004 and she had approached the Court after a time gap of about five years. While doing so, the Division Bench ignored that the prayer made by the appellant was, in substance, for issue of writ in the nature of habeas corpus. In our view, in a case like the present one, the High Court should not have non-suited the appellant only on the ground of delay by overlooking the fact that she had knocked the doors of administrative authorities and political Head of the State.

For the reason stated above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for deciding the writ petition afresh.

We also direct the Director General of Police of the State of Uttar Pradesh to depute an officer not below the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police to make an investigation into the disappearance of the appellant''s husband Shri Sakaldeep Singh from Police Hospital, Kanpur. The report of the investigation be submitted to the High Court within a period of three and half months.

The High Court is requested to consider the matter in the light of the report of the Deputy Inspector General of Police and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

After remand from the Supreme Court, petitioner amended the writ petition twice and added following reliefs:

(ia) Issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order of dismissal of petitioner''s husband Shri Sakaldeep Singh (Annexure 7 to the writ petition) and to direct the respondents to provide the petitioner the arrears of pay, pension, gratuity, provident fund, leave-encashment and other retirement benefits of her husband and to grant and pay to the petitioner the pension of her husband as according to law as well as to provide the employment on compassionate ground to the son of petitioner Santan Kumar Singh in U.P. Police.

(iiia) Issue a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents to produce Shri Sakaldeep Singh an undischarged serious patient missing from Police Medico custody before this Hon''ble Court. In case he is heeled, to disclose the name of offenders who are involved in his murder and to register criminal case against the offenders, for proper investigation and for punishing the offenders according to law.

Pursuant to the aforesaid direction of the Supreme Court, the Director General of Police, U.P., deputed Deputy Inspector General, P.A.C., Kanpur to investigate into the matter of disappearance of the petitioner''s husband namely Shri Sakaldeep Singh. The investigation was conducted and report was submitted on 3rd August, 2010, which has been brought on record as Annexure 3 to the affidavit filed by Smt. Hem Lata Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kanpur Nagar.

Thereafter on 17th September, 2012, this Court took cognizance of the said report of the Deputy Inspector General dated 3rd August, 2010 and passed an order, relevant extracts of which, are quoted below:

Learned Standing Counsel has not been able to inform as what steps have been taken by the Inspector General of Police (Lok Shikayat) on the aforesaid recommendations. Learned Standing Counsel is allowed ten days time to obtain instructions as to from which Investigation Branch the investigation has been directed to be completed. Learned Standing Counsel may obtain instruction and inform the Court as to what action has been taken on the aforesaid recommendations. After obtaining information from Inspector General of Police (Lok Shikayat), instructions be also obtained from the Director General of Police, U.P. who has been directed by the Apex Court on 5.4.2010 for carrying out the investigation within three and half months which time has already been lapsed.

A copy of this order may be given to the learned Standing Counsel for communication to the authorities concerned.

Then, the learned Standing Counsel brought to the notice of this Court on 4th October, 2012 that an order had already been passed by the Director General of Police (Lok Shikayat) on 25th September, 2012, for getting impartial investigation completed in the supervision of Deputy Inspector General of Police/S.S.P. Kanpur Nagar and or 29th September, 2012, the S.S.P. (City) had constituted a Committee of seven police officials to carry on the investigation in Case Crime No. 349 of 2012 u/s 364, I.P.C. Thereafter, this Court directed the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kanpur Nagar to take appropriate steps so that the investigation may be completed and appropriate report may also be brought on record.

Accordingly, the investigation was completed and final report dated 3rd December, 2012 was submitted, the relevant extracts of which are quoted herein below:

Against the aforesaid final report, no protest petition was filed, the Special C.J.M. Kanpur Nagar took cognizance of the same and 7th February, 2014 was the date fixed for consideration thereof, as is apparent from the affidavit of Sri Netrapal Singh, Circle Officer, Kotwali, Kanpur Nagar dated 23rd January, 2014.

Now adverting to the facts of the case, it appears that petitioner''s husband Shri Sakaldeep Singh was posted as constable in civil police at Kanpur Nagar, in the year 2001. On the occasion of Shri Krishna Janmashtmi, he was asked to report for duty at Mathura, but he fell down and became unconscious on 10th August, 2001, therefore, did not report for duty at Mathura and took medical treatment at L.L.R. Hospital, Kanpur. However, he joined duty in November, 2003. Therefore, for his long absence from duty w.e.f. 5th September, 2001 to 11th November, 2003, a charge-sheet was issued to him on 1st December, 2003. On 6th December, 2003, he again fell ill and was admitted in Police Hospital, Police Lines, Kanpur. On 15th December, 2003 he submitted reply to aforesaid charge-sheet. On 11th February, 2004, he disappeared from the Police Hospital and returned back to the hospital on 13th February, 2004 and informed that he had gone to Ursala Hospital for treatment. Thereafter, on 15th February, 2004, he again disappeared from the Police Hospital, Police Lines, Kanpur and did not come back.

The contention of the petitioner is that her husband was suffering from mental diseases, therefore, it was for the staff of the Police Hospital as well as the police personnel to take care of him but they acted irresponsibly. Neither they took proper care of him nor made any effort to trace him out. She alleged foul play in disappearance of her husband and suspected that he might have been killed.

However, pursuant to the aforesaid charge-sheet, disciplinary proceedings were conducted against Shri Sakaldeep Singh, husband of the petitioner and ultimately he was dismissed from service on 12th July, 2004.

We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel and carefully perused the report submitted by the Deputy Inspector General, P.A.C., Kanpur dated 3rd August, 2010. The Apex Court has required this Court to consider the matter in the light of the report of the Deputy Inspector General, P.A.C., Kanpur.

From the report it appears that a deep investigation was conducted in the matter. Petitioner''s husband Shri Sakaldeep Singh, was searched at all known places where he used to visit and necessary enquiries were made from all his close relatives and acquaintances etc. Relevant witnesses were examined and oral as well as documentary evidences were collected.

The report reveals that during the service period of Shri Sakaldeep Singh, the petitioner and her son did not reside with him. The petitioner used to reside at her original place of residence in Bihar whereas Shri Sakaldeep Singh used to reside at different places of his postings. The petitioner and her son rarely used to visit to him and that too only to collect money. In fact, the statement of the witnesses, who are close associates of Shri Sakaldeep Singh, shows that they were aware of only two instances when the son of the petitioner had come to him, firstly to take money from him and thereafter in the year 2007 to know his whereabouts i.e., about 3 or 4 years after his disappearance.

The report also reveals that Shri Sakaldeep Singh had developed illicit relations with one Smt. Anita W/o. Sri Ram Chandra R/o. Rajkiya Unnayan Basti Bithoor Road Colony, P.S. Kalyanpur, District Kanpur Nagar, as is evident from her statement which is part of the report at Sl. No. 20. The said fact is also borne out from the statement of Dayanand Rai son of Sri Harihar Rai, permanent R/o. Hans Nagar P.S. Haldi, district Ballia, temporary R/o. LIG 113, Indira Nagar P.S. Kalyanpur, district Kanpur, a close friend of Sri Sakaldeep Singh.

The report also reveals that Sri Sakaldeep Singh used to drink heavily and in the drunken state, he used to indulge in unruly behavior in public. He was frustrated and greatly disturbed because of his family problems, specially for the reason that the money given by him to his son for the purpose of marriage of his daughter, was misappropriated by his son. His service record was full of adverse materials as detailed in the report.

The report also indicates that the petitioner was repeatedly requested to provide photographs of Sri Sakaldeep Singh, which would facilitate in tracing him out, but no cooperation was extended nor any photograph was provided. Despite non-cooperation, the officials made all possible efforts to investigate the matter and trace out Sri Sakaldeep Singh, but with no success.

The report also reveals that after his disappearance on 11th February, 2004 from the Police Hospital Police Lines, Kanpur, Sri Sakaldeep Singh was seen in public in a drunken state on 3rd/4th March, 2004 begging for money from the passers-by and a news report in this regard was published in the daily news paper Dainik Jagaran, which has also been taken note of in the investigation report. The said fact has also been corroborated by several witnesses. This fact clearly goes to show that the disappearance of Sri Sakaldeep Singh from the Police Hospital on 11th February, 2004 was not the result of any foul play on the part of the hospital staff or the police personals and that he was alive even after 11th February, 2004. This fact is also corroborated by the statement of aforesaid Smt. Anita W/o. Sri Ram Chandra, who also stated that Sri Sakaldeep Singh visited her place in very good condition in September, 2004. Therefore, the story of any foul play is not acceptable.

It has also come in the report that the villagers have stated that if Sri Sakaldeep Singh had died, then his family members would have certainly performed his last rituals in the village but the same was not done. Therefore, the possibility of Sri Sakaldeep Singh being alive, cannot be ruled out and it may also be possible that the petitioner is deliberately concealing existence Sri Sakaldeep Singh with a view to procure compassionate appointment of her son.

The report also reveals that the belongings of Sri Sakaldeep Singh have been handed over to Sri Santanu Kumar Singh son of Sri Sakaldeep Singh and the documentary proof in this regard contains the signatures of Santanu Kumar Singh, Sri Chandra Shekhar Panda and other persons. Therefore, the allegations of the petitioner in this regard are false.

The report also reveals that extensive publication regarding disappearance of Sri Sakaldeep Singh was made in the news papers, though without photograph, and several teams were constituted to find out his whereabouts, but without any success.

The Investigator has also found on the basis of oral and documentary evidence collected during the course of investigation that Sri Sakaldeep Singh was admitted to Police Hospital, Police Line Kanpur for the ailment of Asthama, Fever and Lungs Infection.

Relevant extracts of the report dated 3rd August, 2010 are quoted herein-below:

On over all consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, we express our full satisfaction on the investigation conducted and the report submitted on 3rd August, 2010 by Deputy Inspector General, P.A.C., Kanpur pursuant to the order of the Apex Court.

In so far as the investigation done and the final report submitted on 3rd December, 2012, by a Committee of seven police officials under the supervision of Deputy Inspector General of Police, in Case Crime No. 349 of 2012, pursuant to the order of this Court dated 17th September, 2012, is concerned, since the same is pending consideration before the Court of Special C.J.M. Kanpur Nagar, we do not express any opinion thereon, rather make it clear that the concerned Court will not be influenced in any manner by any of the observations made in this judgment, herein-before or herein-after and shall take final decision in the matter independently as per law.

From the reports, we find that all the efforts made by the police, were made subsequent to the directions of the Apex Court as well as this Court except the R.T. Message sent by R.I. Police Lines on 16th February, 2004. Thus, the police is responsible for its negligence in not taking proper action immediately after disappearance of Sri Sakaldeep Singh on 11th February, 2004 and thereafter till the investigation was initiated by the Deputy Inspector General under the orders of the Supreme Court and to this extent the complaint of the petitioner seems to be justified. Therefore, it is directed that the Director General of Police shall take appropriate action against the erring police officials in accordance with law expeditiously.

However, as discussed above, there is no foul play in his disappearance. As per testimony of the witnesses referred in the report Sri Sakaldeep Singh used to disappear and turn up after some time. His conduct was also not good, neither as a police personnel nor as a person. Accordingly, we do not deem it fit to order any further investigation in the matter.

In view of the discussions made above, we do not find any valid reason to pursue this matter any further. In stead, as a period of more than 7 years has lapsed since the disappearance of Sri Sakaldeep Singh, it would be appropriate for the petitioner to approach the competent Court of civil jurisdiction to seek appropriate declaration in respect of her husband Sri Sakaldeep Singh and for other consequential reliefs to which, she may be entitled under law. But no further direction is required to be issued by this Court in the matter of disappearance of Sri Sakaldeep Singh.

Now the fact remains that by means of the amendments incorporated in the writ petition after remand of the matter from the Apex Court, the petitioner has also sought quashing of the dismissal order and has also claimed several service benefits inclusive of retiral benefits as well as compassionate appointment of her son, who is not even a party to the writ petition.

Therefore, in so far as the challenge made by the petitioner to the dismissal order of Sri Sakaldeep Singh is concerned, though the same has been passed ex parte, the concerned authorities cannot be faulted for the same, as they made all necessary efforts to serve notices and the charge-sheet upon Sri Singh, but on account of his non-availability and continued absence, they were left with no option except to proceed ex parte. Moreover, considering the conduct of Sri Sakaldeep Singh as mentioned in the dismissal order as also his past conduct, we are of the view that in spite of the disciplinary proceedings being ex parte, the dismissal order cannot be held to be bad in law, specially, the police force being a disciplined force and such unauthorised absence being uncondonable.

Consequently, in the facts and circumstances of this case, we do not find any reason or justification to interfere in the impugned order of dismissal, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and therefore, no direction for post retiral benefits or compassionate appointment, as prayed for, can be issued. However, in case Sri Sakaldeep Singh was entitled under any law to get any benefit or dues during the period he was in service, the same may be considered by the authority concerned and paid to the petitioner or such other person, who may be entitled to get the same, as per the provisions of law.

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of.