Allahabad High Court
Anil Kumar Rana vs State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy. Home ... on 27 February, 2020
Author: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 23 Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 2936 of 2020 Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Rana Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow & Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Raj Vikram Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
Case called out. None appeared for the petitioner.
Dr. Uday Veer Singh, learned Addl. C.S.C. has filed personal affidavit on behalf of S.P., Hardoi in compliance of the order dated 19.02.2020, the same is taken on record.
This Court has passed a detailed order on 12.02.2020 which reads as under:
"Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This Court has passed the order dated 04.02.2020, which reads as under:-
"Heard Sri Raj Vikram Singh learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties.
Petition has been filed seeking a direction to opposite parties to provide inquiry report of an alleged de novo inquiry. Sri Pradeep Kumar Singh learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has submitted that petition is not maintainable on the ground that earlier disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against petitioner which culminated in the dismissal of petitioner from services vide order dated 26th June, 2007. Appeal there against was also dismissed where after writ petition No 4262 (S/S) of 2008 was filed and was disposed of with a direction for filing of claim petition before the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal. Despite the order having been passed in 2008, the claim petition was preferred by petitioner only in the year 2010 and was also dismissed on account of laches. The said order was assailed in writ petition No. 1788 of 2011 which was also dismissed vide order dated 10th December, 2015; review petition No. 546 of 2015 was also dismissed as well as special leave petition which was also dismissed at the admission stage itself.
Subsequent to the aforesaid factors, the petitioner on his own sent an application on 14th June, 2018 requesting de novo inquiry. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that de novo inquiry was instituted in which petitioner participated but the inquiry report has thereafter not been made available to the petitioner.
Learned State Counsel on the basis of aforesaid factors submits that the petition is not maintainable in view of the fact that there is no provision for such de novo inquiry without any specific directions of the court.
From a perusal of the material on record, it appears that there is no document indicating initiation of any de novo inquiry after dismissal of special leave petition by Hon'ble the Supreme Court. In the aforesaid factors it does not appear that any de novo inquiry was conducted although learned counsel for petitioner has drawn attention to a letter dated 31st October, 2018, which however does not indicate the same.
Learned counsel for petitioner seeks some time in order to bring on record any document such as a charge sheet indicating de novo disciplinary inquiry having been held.
In view of the aforesaid prayer made by learned counsel for petitioner list this case on 11th February, 2020 as a fresh case in the additional cause list."
Today, learned counsel for the petitioner could not bring on record any documents indicating the fact as to whether the de novo inquiry has been initiated in the issue of the petitioner.
As per learned counsel for the petitioner, since no document any kind whatsoever including the charge-sheet have been served upon the petitioner after initiating the de novo proceedings, therefore, he is unable to bring on record such documents.
If the petitioner was unable to bring on record such documents in terms of order dated 04.02.2020, he could have pointed out the Court with the request that he could not bring on record those documents so that the precious time of the Court could be saved. Further, he has not filed any affidavit indicating therein that the documents, as per the order of this Court dated 04.02.2020, may not be brought on record as those documents are not available with him.
This Court is unable to comprehend as to why the de novo proceedings have been initiated in the issue of the petitioner when the issue has finally been decided upto the level of Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure No.2 to the writ petition, which is a letter dated 31.10.2018 preferred by the Tehsildar, Tehsil-Shahabad, District-Hardoi addressing to the Inspector Incharge, Kotwali-Shahabad referring the letter dated 27.08.2018 of Inspector Incharge of Kotwali, Shahabad apprising him that the Caste Certificate of the petitioner was issued from his office.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that if this Court summons the letter dated 27.08.2018 of Inspector Incharge, Kotwali-Shahabad, the fact would be clarified that in the issue of the petitioner the de novo inquiry has been initiated and the Inspector Incharge, Kotwali-Shahabad was the Inquiry Officer.
As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was serving on the post of Constable, whose Appointing Authority is Superintendent of Police, therefore, only the Superintendent of Police can initiate de novo proceedings, if any, and appoint any officer as Inquiry Officer.
In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on perusal of the letter dated 27.08.2018 of Inspector Incharge, Kotwali-Shahabad would be clarifed that de novo proceedings in the issue of the petitioner has been initiated.
After considering the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court has observed that all the aforesaid contentions do not satisfy the Court regarding query being made in the order dated 04.02.2020 and has cautioned the learned counsel for the petitioner that if after summoning the said letter it is not disclose that any de novo proceedings have been initiated in issue of the petitioner, the writ petition would be dismissed with heavy cost, even then, he has pressed his request for summoning the document.
List this case on 19.02.2020. On the said date, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel shall seek specific instructions from the Superintendent of Police, District-Hardoi on the point as to whether any de novo inquiry has been initiated in the issue of the petitioner and if such inquiry has been initiated, the order to that effect be produced in the Court on the next date. The copy of letter dated 27.08.2018 of the Inspector Incharge, Kotwali-Shahabad shall also be produced. On the said date, if the de novo inquiry has been initiated and the charge-sheet has been issued, the authority concerned shall apprise the Court as to whether the charge-sheet has been served upon the petitioner or not."
Since the learned counsel for the petitioner has not appeared in this case today nor any request for adjournment has been made, therefore,the matter is being decided finally on the basis of material available on record.
This Court vide order dated 04.02.2020 has granted time to the learned counsel for the petitioner to bring on record any documents indicating that any de novo enquiry was initiated in the case of the petitioner. No such affidavit has been filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on 12.02.2020. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted with vehemence that however, the petitioner could not bring on record any documents indicating the fact that the de novo enquiry has been initiated in the case, but if this Court summoned the letter dated 27.08.2018 preferred by the Kotwali Shahabad, the decision would be clarified. However this Court on 12.02.2020 has observed that when the mater has already been decided up to the level of the Hon'ble Apex Court against the petitioner, then no de novo enquiry could have been initiated, but on the insistence of the petitioner, this Court has passed the order dated 12.02.2020 to summon the letter dated 27.08.2018 to apprise the Court as to whether any de novo enquiry has been initiated against the petitioner or not. This Court had also cautioned the learned counsel for the petitioner that if such fact is not established, the petitioner may be dismissed with costs, even then he has pressed his request.
The case was listed on 19.02.2020 and on the said date, this Court has directed to file personal affidavit which has been filed today.
In the aforesaid personal affidavit, the Superintendent of Police has categorically submitted in para 15 that "no order or direction was ever issued for initiating/ conducting the de novo enquiry in the matter of the petitioner". The Superintendent of Police has also indicated that when the issue was finally settled up to the level of the Hon'ble Apex Court, there was no reason to issue any direction for initiating/conducting the de novo proceedings. The Superintendent of Police has enclosed the letter dated 27.08.2018 preferred by one Sub-Inspector, Shri Om Pal Singh, the then Sub-Inspector of P.S. Shahabad, thereby he has preferred such a letter to the Tehsildar, Hardoi seeking report in respect of caste certificate of the petitioner. In the said letter, the Sub-inspector concerned has himself indicated that he is conducting the de novo enquiry.
In view of the above, this Court is of the view that a Sub-Inspector cannot initiate de novo proceedings in an issue which has already been decided up to the level of Supreme Court and if it so required, such order could have been passed by the Disciplinary Authority i.e. Superintendent of Police. In the present case, no such order has been passed by the Superintendent of Police, Hardoi, therefore, it appears prima facie that the said Sub-Inspector has exceeded his jurisdiction for which any appropriate action may be taken strictly in accordance with law.
Pursuant to the aforesaid letter dated 27.08.2018, the Teshildar Shahabad has apprised the Inspector In-charge, Kotwali Shahabd that the Caste Certificate in question relating to the petitioner has been issued from his office.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the issue in question, it appears that the petitioner has filed misconceived petition and wasted precious time of this Court inasmuch as this Court has given indulgence on 04.02.2020, 12.02.2020, 19.02.2020 and today i.e. 27.02.2020, therefore, the writ petition is dismissed being misconceived with the cost of Rs. 5,000/-. The amount of the cost shall be deposited in the mediation centre within six weeks, failing which, the Senior Registrar shall recover the said amount from the petitioner as arrears.
Order Date :- 27.2.2020 SK/-