Allahabad High Court
Ram Gopal Yadav vs Union Of India And Others on 2 August, 2010
Author: Shishir Kumar
Bench: Shishir Kumar
Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 38566 of 2010 Petitioner :- Ram Gopal Yadav Respondent :- Union Of India And Others Petitioner Counsel :- R.M. Saggi Respondent Counsel :- Govind Saran Hon'ble Shishir Kumar,J.
Heard Sri R.M. Saggi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Tarun Verma, learned counsel for the respondents.
The petitioner has approached this Court for the following reliefs:
(I) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 9.10.2009 passed by respondent no.4/5, order dated 8.6.2010, 15.6.2010 and 11.6.2010 (annexed as Annexure No.1, Annexure No.2, Annexure No.3 and Annexure No.4 to the writ petition respectively);
(II) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to release the payment of salary to the petitioner since July 2009 along with other dues permissible under the law in terms of arrears and permit the petitioner to work as Inspector;
(III) to issue any other suitable writ, order or direction in the nature as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to meet the ends of justice under the facts and circumstances of the present case.
(IV) to award cost of the writ petition to the petitioner."
The parties were directed to file counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit. Now counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. The only grievance of the petitioner was that a person of his equal rank has been appointed as inquiry officer which is not permissible under Rule 153.2.1 of the R.P.F. Act.
Rule 153.2.1 of the R.P.F. Act is being reproduced below:
"153.2.1. Whenever the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that there are grounds for inquiring into the truth of any imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour against an enrolled member of the Force, it may itself inquire into or appoint an Inquiry Officer higher in rank to the enrolled member charged but not below the rank of Inspector, or institute a Court of inquiry to inquire into the truth thereof."
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents Sri Tarun Verma submits that in view of the provision quoted above, it is clear that a person equal to the rank or lower to the rank of charged employee cannot be appointed as Inquiry Officer, therefore, the contention to this effect raised before this Court by the petitioner is correct in view of the rules. Therefore, the appointment of the inquiry officer and further consequential orders passed or any decision taken by him, can be quashed with a liberty to the respondent to appoint any other person who is competent and having jurisdiction according to law to make an inquiry against the petitioner.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and statement given before this Court, in my opinion, the writ petition can be disposed of by quashing the appointment of the Inquiry Officer and any decision taken by him is hereby quashed on the basis of said inquiry report. It is further made clear that the petitioner will not be punished on the basis of the inquiry report submitted.
In the facts and circumstances of the case as it has been informed that the petitioner has been kept under suspension form 9.10.2009, therefore, it is open to the disciplinary authority to take into consideration such fact that at the present moment no inquiry is pending against the petitioner and continuance of long suspension is also not permissible in law. Therefore, it will be appropriate in the interest of justice that in such circumstances, the disciplinary authority may take a final decision regarding revocation of the order of suspension of the petitioner within a period of two weeks.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
No order is passed as to costs.
Order Date :- 2.8.2010 V.Sri/-