Allahabad High Court
Siddhant Seth vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 16 May, 2025
Author: Karunesh Singh Pawar
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:28844 RESERVED ON 7.5.2025 DELIVERED ON 16.5.2025 Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5705 of 2024 Petitioner :- Siddhant Seth Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Chandra Tewari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
1.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel who has accepted notice on behalf of respondents.
2.By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing impugned order dated 23.3.2024 (Annexure-1), passed by Deputy Commissioner of Police, Headquarters, Kanpur Nagar as also order dated 3.10.2023 passed by Inspector General of Police, P.A.C. Central Zone and Secretary, I.P. Police Sports Control Board, Lucknow after summoning the same from the respondents.
A further writ in the nature of mandamus has also been sought directing respondents to allow the petitioner to continue to work and discharge his duties on the post of Constable, Civil Police, and pay him salary and allowances regularly every month, with arrears of salary.
3.Brief facts of the case are that an advertisement was issued on 28.9.2022 for appointment on the post of Constable of Civil Police under Sports quota in U.P. Police. In the advertisement, 10 posts of Constables of Civil Police were earmarked from the candidates of weight lifting. It was provided that the candidates who have completed 18 years of age as on 1.7.2022 and below 22 years with sports qualification having been acquired within two years of the last date of submission of application form, i.e. 31.10.2022 are eligible to submit their applications. The petitioner being a weight lifter and National Championship held in March, 2022 and fully eligible has applied for appointment on the post of Constable under sports quota in weight lifting category. The petitioner participated in the trial of weight lifting on 16.1.2023, result was declared on 28.3.2023 and the petitioner's name finds place at serial No.2 in weight lifting category. The petitioner also participated in the medical test held on 12.5.2023.
On the petitioner being declared successful was issued an appointment letter dated 2.7.2023 of the post of Constable of Civil Police and posted in Kanpur Nagar. In the appointment order, it has been mentioned that the petitioner is being appointed on the post of Constable on two years probation and the said appointment is temporary and can be terminated any any point of time. The petitioner was allowed to join training on 28.7.2023. On successful training, he was issued a certificate by the Commandant, 35th Battalion, PAC, Lucknow. Subsequently, the petitioner was allowed to join in the training programme for preparation of competitions for U.P. Police Team. Now, by the impugned order dated 23.3.2024, the petitioner has been dismissed/discharged from service.
4.While assailing the impugned order, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the ground on which the petitioner has been dismissed from service is that he has allegedly been found positive in the dope test conducted by National Anti Doping Agency during his participation in All India University Weightlifting Championship-2023 and he has been restrained for three years from 26.4.2023. It is submitted that the petitioner was selected and appointed on the basis of his certificate of participation in National Championship in March, 2022. It is further submitted that the impugned order has been passed against the petitioner sans any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and is hit by Articles 14, 21 and 311(2) of the Constitution of India.
Learned counsel has further submitted that during the period of probation, the petitioner has not been complained of nor he has disobeyed any of the instructions of his senior authorities which may render him disqualified under Rule 22 of U.P. Police (skilled Player) Recruitment and Promotion Without Innings Rules, 2021 (in short, 2021 Rules). Learned counsel has further submitted that the selection and appointment of the petitioner has nothing to do with the letter dated 18.7.2023 of National Anti-Doping Agency which has been filed along with the counter affidavit as Annexure No.CA-2, whereby the petitioner has been banned from 26.4.2023 to 25.4.2026 for a period of three years for his participation in All India Weightlifting Championship 2023 as he has not derived any benefit of his medal and certificate awarded to him in the All India University Weightlifting Championship, 2023. He further submits that the Anti-Doping Act and Rules are prohibitory in nature and its consequence is a ban for a particular period. The selection of the petitioner is based on the certificate which is intact and the petitioner has not done any wrong during his probation period and the event during the probation period can only be looked into for discharge as per 2021 Rules. The grounds mentioned in the impugned order which are not part of the probation appear to have cast a stigma in the service career of the petitioner.
5.The learned standing counsel has opposed the contention and submitted that the petitioner was found positive in the dope test by the National Anti-doping Agency on 17.3.2023 during All India University Weightlifting Championship, 2023 competition held at Chandigarh University and he has been banned for three years w.e.f. 26.4.2023 vide letter dated 18.7.2023 of National Anti Doping Agency, New Delhi. Thereafter, vide order dated 29.9.2023 passed by Inspector General of Police, respondent No.4, a departmental proceeding was conducted and notice was issued to the petitioner who has given his reply and on the basis of preliminary investigation report dated 9.3.2024 submitted by Assistant Commissioner of Police Lines, Kanpur, the petitioner has been discharged from service vide order dated 23.3.2024. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order.
6.I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is admitted case of the parties that the petitioner was selected and appointed on the basis of his certificate obtained in National Weightlifting Championships, 2021-22 which was held w.e.f. 19.3.2022 to 31.3.2022. It is further admitted that the appointment of the petitioner has been made in accordance with 2021 Rules. The services of the petitioner are governed by 2021 Rules. Rule 22(3) provides that in case the selected candidates do not maintain their sports level and skills during the period of probation, their period of probation can be extended by one year or in special circumstances by two years. Rule 4 provides that if during extended period, the Secretary, U.P. Police Sports Control Board finds that the skilled sportsperson has not maintained his level and skill, then recommendation for discharge from service may be sent to the appointing authority and in such discharge, no disciplinary action will be necessary as per rules. For convenience, Rule 22 is extracted herein under :
" 22(1) Candidates who are selected as skilled sportspersons will be placed on probation for a period of two years from the date of appointment:
Provided that according to sub-rule (2) of rule 8, sportspersons who do not fulfill the minimum educational qualification can be kept on probation for a maximum period of five years.
(2) During the period of probation, the probationer shall be required to undergo such training as may be prescribed by the Head of the Department.
(3) If such selected candidates do not maintain their sports level and skills during the period of probation, then their period of probation can be extended by the Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Police Sports Control Board after due consideration by one year or in special circumstances by two years.
(4) If during this extended period the Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Police Sports Control Board is of the opinion that the skilled sportsperson holding the above post has not maintained his level and skill, then recommendation for discharge from service of such skilled sportsperson may be sent to the appointing authority by the secretary, UP Police Sports Control Board; and in such discharge, no disciplinary action will be necessary as per the rules.
(5) A probationer whose services are terminated shall not be entitled to any compensation."
7. Rule 22, extracted above, is thus applicable in case of the candidates who are on probation for a period of two years and who during their probation are unable to maintain their sports level and skill. Sub rule (3) provides extension of probation period by the Secretary, U.P. Police Sports Control Board for one year or in special circumstances by two years. Sub Rule (4) provides that even during this extended period, the Secretary, U.P. Police Sports Control Board is of the opinion that the sports person holding the post has not maintained his level and skill, then commendation for discharge from service of such skilled sportsperson may be sent to the appointing authority by the Secretary, U.P. Police Sports Control Board and in case of such discharge, no disciplinary action will be necessary as per the rules.
In this case, the petitioner has been discharged, though under Rule 22 but not on the ground that he has failed to maintain his level of sports and skill during the period of probation; rather on the ground that he was found positive in the doping test conducted on 17.3.2023 at Chandigarh University. The advertisement for recruitment in question was made on 28.9.2022. Result was declared on 28.3.2023. The petitioner was banned in doping test from 26.4.2023 for a period of three years. The petitioner admittedly has not taken any benefit of any medal whatsoever issued by the Chandigarh university where he was found positive in the doping test. Discharging the petitioner from service by a stigmatic order is impermissible as no opportunity of hearing was granted to him and is violative of principles of natural justice as also the provisions of Arts. 311(2), read with Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. This stigmatic order of discharge from service cannot be sustained.
8.From perusal of the impugned order, Annexure No.1, it is evident that the order has been passed on the basis of input received from the Commandant, 35th Battalion PAC/Inspector General of Police, PAC, Central Zone and Secretary, U.P. Police Sports Control Board Lucknow vide letter No.S.C.T.-07/2023(iii) dated 3.10.2024. The input contains stigma against the petitioner that he was found positive in the doping test. Thus, opportunity of hearing as stated above was must which has not been given to the petitioner. Needless to say that Rule 22 does not cover this kind of contingency; rather 2021 Rules are applicable to those probationers who even in their extended period under sub rule (4) of Rule 22 are unable to maintain their level and skill. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner has failed to maintain his level and skill; rather their case is that he was found positive in the doping test held on 17.3.2023. There is no allegation against the petitioner whatsoever in the impugned order that he has not maintained his sports level and skill during the period of probation which may warrant discharge from service. Thus, the impugned order could not have been passed on the basis of Rule 22. Since it is a stigmatic order, formal disciplinary proceedings ought to have been conducted if required at all, against the petitioner.
In the National Anti-Doping Rules, 2021, the penalty is prescribed which is procedural in nature. It has not been considered as an offence; rather a disqualification in participating for a competition and if found guilty, the sports person is declared ineligible for a certain period. The only impact of the fact that the petitioner was tested positive in the doping test on 17.3.2023 can be that all other competitive results secured by the petitioner from the date of sample collection, i.e. 17.3.2023 shall stand forfeited, including the medals, points and prizes. It is not the case of the respondent that the petitioner has secured appointment on the basis of any certificate acquired by him after 17.3.2023.
9.In view of the above, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 23.3.2024, Annexure No.1 is set aside. The petitioner is directed to be reinstated in service.
In case the respondents feel to take any action against the petitioner, it is open for them to proceed, strictly in accordance with relevant Rules.
Order Date :- 16.5.2025 kkb/