Allahabad High Court
Bhishma Pitamah Pandey vs State Public Services Tribunal Lko. ... on 6 February, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:10713-DB Reserved on 09.01.2024 Delivered on 06.02.2024 Court No. - 1 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 86 of 2024 Petitioner :- Bhishma Pitamah Pandey Respondent :- State Public Services Tribunal Lko. Thru. Chairman And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vyas Narayan Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- Manish Mishra,C.S.C. Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.
(Per: Brij Raj Singh, J.)
1. Heard Sri Vyas Narayan Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 05.10.2023 passed by opposite party no.1/ State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow, whereby the claim petition filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the punishment order of dismissal dated 26.02.2016 passed by opposite party no.4/ Superintendent of Police, Barabanki and the appellate order dated 08.02.2017 passed by opposite party no.3/Deputy Inspector General of Police, Faizabad Range, Faiziabad (Now Ayodhya) has been rejected.
3. The relevant facts in nutshell are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Constable on 01.08.1994 and joined his services in Government Railway Police at Moradabad. Vide order dated 01.04.2011 passed by opposite party no.3/ Deputy Inspector General of Police, Faizabad Range, Faiziabad (Now Ayodhya), petitioner was transferred from district Barabanki to district Sultanpur but he remained absent and did not join his duty, though he was relieved on 05.04.2011. The relevant information was sent to his house but he remained absent and thereafter preliminary inquiry was conducted against the petitioner and on the basis of preliminary inquiry, departmental proceedings were also initiated under Rules 41(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred as 'Rules,1991'). After conducting the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 27.08.2015 with the opinion that the petitioner was found guilty of unauthorized absence and his service was liable to be dismissed. A show cause notice was given to the petitioner vide letter dated 28.08.2015 which was received by the petitioner on 10.11.2015. After considering the inquiry report as well as relevant record in the light of reply, the order of punishment order of dismissal from service was passed on 26.02.2016 against which the petitioner preferred an appeal,which was also dismissed vide order dated 08.02.2017 passed by opposite party no.3. Thereafter the order dated 26.02.2016 passed by opposite party no.4 and the appellate order dated 08.02.2017 passed by opposite party no.3 were challenged by filing Claim Petition No. 618 of 2017 before the State Public Services Tribunal and the said petition was dismissed vide order dated 05.10.2023. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner before this Court against the judgment and orders mentioned above.
4. The petitioner has taken a plea that the enquiry report submitted by the inquiry officer is ex-parte and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as such the inquiry report is faulty. It has also been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that as the petitioner was suffering from illness, he could not attend his duty. It has been further submitted that the petitioner was neither allowed to lead his evidences nor his statement was recorded, besides, no opportunity was provided to him to cross-examine the witnesses. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Krushnakant B. Parmar Vs Union of India and another, reported in AIR 2012 SC ( Supp) 42 and the judgments passed by this Court in the cases of Kusum V. State of U.P. & others reported in 2021 (1) ALJ 306, Shahin Akhtar V. State of U. P. reported in AIRONLINE 2019 All, 1214, Abdul Aleem Vs. State of U.P. AIRONLINE 2019 All 2585, S.C. Asthana V. State of U.P. AIRONLINE 2023 All 959 and Ram Pal Singh Vs. Director of Agriculture reported in 2012 (3)) LCD 843.
5. Per contra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has submitted that the inquiry was conducted in accordance with law and the petitioner did not cooperate in the inquiry proceedings. He has further submitted that the petitioner was transferred to district Sultanpur vide order dated 01.04.2011 passed by opposite party no.3/ Deputy Inspector General of Police,Faizabad Range, Faiziabad (Now Ayodhya) but he did not join his duties at the transferred place. An information in this regard was sent to the residence of the petitioner but he remained absent. The Superintendent of Police, Sultanpur issued a letter dated 21.05.2014 which was received at his residence on 10.06.2014 but he did not choose to join the duty, therefore, preliminary inquiry was conducted. Again he was called vide letter dated 09.07.2014 which was received on 12.07.2014 at his residence. Thereafter, on 23.07.2014 a letter was issued to the petitioner to join his duty.
6. It has been submitted by learned Standing Counsel that inquiry officer fixed number of dates i.e. on 05.02.2015, 08.02.2015, 24.02.2015, 04.03.2015, 23.03.2015, 28.04.2015, 13.05.2015, 19.05.2015, 30.05.2015, 11.06.2015, 29.06.2015, 06.08.2015 and 17.08.2015 but the petitioner has chosen not to appear before the inquiry officer. Under the compelling circumstances, the inquiry officer submitted his report on 27.08.2015 and found that the petitioner was guilty of unauthorized absence. The punishing authority proceeded in accordance with law and after considering the inquiry report submitted by the inquiry officer and the relevant record, the dismissal order was passed. It has been submitted by learned Standing Counsel that since the petitioner is in disciplinary force, and his unauthorized absence is serious lapse, his service were rightly terminated.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the pleadings available on record, the emerging position is that the petitioner was transferred from district Barabanki to district Sultanpur on 01.04.2011 and was relieved on 04.04.2011 but he did not join his duty at the transferred place. Thereafter many notices were sent by the department to the petitioner's residence to participate in the inquiry proceedings. The record reveals that in the inquiry proceedings many dates were fixed by the inquiry officer i.e. on 05.02.2015, 08.02.2015, 24.02.2015, 04.03.2015, 23.03.2015, 28.04.2015, 13.05.2015, 19.05.2015, 30.05.2015, 1106.2015, 29.06.2015, 06.08.2015 and 17.08.2015 but the petitioner remained absent from duty and also did not participate in the departmental proceedings. The unauthorized absence of an employee of police force cannot be condoned and he committed misconduct towards his duty.
8. From the pleadings it is evident that certain medical papers were filed by the petitioner in claim petition and one of the medical certificates indicates that the petitioner was advised for rest from 08.04.2011 to 19.12.2011 and the said paper indicates that the petitioner was medically fit to resume his duty atleast from 20.12.2011 but he did not join the duty. Another medical certificate filed by the petitioner also indicates that he was advised for rest from 20.12.2011 to 21.09.2012 and again he was found fit to resume his duty on 22.09.2012. The aforesaid medical papers were not counter signed by the Chief Medical Officer nor by any other medical officer of the State Government. The aforesaid lapses indicate that the petitioner was negligent towards his duty the inquiry conducted by the inquiry officer needs no interference as it is in consonance with Rules,1991.
9. On the strength of judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner in the cases of Krushnakant B. Parmar, Kusum, Shahin Akhtar, Abdul Aleem,S.C. Asthana and Ram Pal Singh (supra), he is unable to convince the Court that the inquiry was not conducted in accordance with rules. The delinquent employee remained absent and the inquiry officer proceeded in accordance with Rule 14 of Rule 1991.
10. The petitioner has also made a statement of fact in para 4.3 and 4.4 of the claim petition wherein it is admitted that earlier also the petitioner was absent from duty for 776 days and he was punished for unauthorized absence by reverting him to lowest pay scale for one year and leave without pay was granted. This conduct of the petitioner also indicates that he is negligent towards his duties.
11. The Tribunal has considered all the submissions advanced by the petitioner and has given a finding that the petitioner committed gross misconduct as he remained absent from duty and also did not participate in the inquiry proceedings. The Tribunal recorded the finding that inquiry conducted by inquiry officer was in accordance with Rules,1991.
12. The petitioner is in the disciplinary force and his absence from duty for long time is serious misconduct which cannot be condoned. The department had taken a lenient view earlier regarding dereliction of duty against the petitioner for unauthorized absence for a period of 776 days and the punishment was awarded by reverting to lowest pay scale for one year. Later on, he was reinstated in service. This is the second instance that the petitioner remained absent unauthorizedly, therefore, we do not find any error in the judgment dated 05.10.2023 passed by State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow.
13. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
14. No order as to costs.
(Brij Raj Singh, J.) (Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.)
Order Date :- 06.02.2024
dk/-