Allahabad High Court
Smt. Anita Tripathi vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 28 February, 2023
Author: Rajiv Joshi
Bench: Rajiv Joshi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 30 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13474 of 2018 Petitioner :- Smt. Anita Tripathi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.
Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the respondents.
The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed for following reliefs:
"(1) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 8.9.2015, 24.6.2016 and 22.3.2017 passed by respondent nos. 4, 3 and 2 respectively (Annexure Nos. 3, 5 and 6 to this writ petition) whereby the services of the husband of the petitioner was dismissed.
(2) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents authorities to convert the dismissal into compulsory retirement of the husband of the petitioner. "
It reflects from the record that the husband of the petitioner was initially appointed as Constable in U.P. Civil Police in the year 1984 and was posted at Government Railway Police (G.R.P.), Moradabad and he remained absent unauthorizedly from the duty without sanction of any leave and therefore, the dismissal order dated 08.09.2015 was passed by respondent no.2-Superintendent of Police, Railway, Moradabad by dispensing with the inquiry as contemplated under Rule 8 (2) (b) of Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Police Officers (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (herein after referred to as the Rules, 1991) with the finding that the it was not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry. Against the order dated 08.09.2005, the husband of the petitioner filed an appeal, which was dismissed vide order dated 24.06.2016 passed by respondent no.3-Deputy Inspector General of Police, Railway Police, Moradabad. Subsequently, both the aforesaid orders were affirmed by the revisional authority i.e. respondent no.2-Director General of Police, Lucknow vide order dated 22.03.2017. The husband of the petitioner died on 11.03.2018 i.e. after passing of the aforesaid orders.
It further reflects from the record that the husband of the petitioner namely, Sunil Kumar Tripathi having No. 204/842120821 granted seven days' leave w.e.f. 05.08.2014 and joined his duty on 12.08.2014 and remained absent unauthorizedly without any sanction of leave, which was disclosed in report no. 12 at 12.05 hrs, and as such, he was suspended vide order dated 03.09.2014 on the charge of indiscipline, negligence and despotism. The disciplinary authority in exercise of power under Rule 8 (2) (b) of the Rules, 1991 has granted opportunity while dispensing with the inquiry, which was not possible under the circumstances that the husband of the petitioner was unauthorizedly absent from the duty.
It further reflects from the record that the petitioner was suspended w.e.f. 04.12.2014 and remained absent without any leave for 516 days and was punished vide oder dated 19.06.2014 for placing on minimum salary and reinstated in service by withdrawing the suspension order. Subsequently, he was suspended four times vide orders dated 10.10.2004, 10.07.2012, 07.02.2013 and 03.09.2014 and three times with adverse entries in the service record on 07.04.2003, 24.01.2005 and 18.02.2015 and twice, he was granted penalty on 06.12.2012 and thrice awarded minor punishment.
The disciplinary authority recorded a finding that under these circumstances the husband of the petitioner was absent from service without any leave, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry and he was given the major punishment of dismissal from service in exercise of power under Rule 8 (2) (b) of the Rules, 1991. The appeal/revision filed by husband of the petitioner was too dismissed by appellate as well as revisional authority. All these orders are impugned in the present writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that husband of the petitioner working with the respondents since 1984, which is more than 12 years and such, the order of dismissal be altered to compulsory retirement. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported in LAWS (SC) 2000 9 5 (State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Jaikaran Singh).
Learned Standing Counsel has filed the counter affidavit dated 13.09.2018 and submits that the impugned orders has rightly been passed against the husband of the petitioner as he was habitual absentee without any sanctioned leave for a long period and thereafter, recording the reason by the disciplinary authority concerned in writing for not holding such inquiry, he was dismissed from the service, which was affirmed by the appellate and revisional authority, and there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders.
I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record.
I have gone through the impugned orders and come to the conclusion that the petitioner is a habitual absentee without taking leave and was awarded punishment several times after suspension. The finding recorded by the disciplinary authority to the effect that the regular inquiry is not reasonably practicable and as such, in exercise of power under Rule 8 (2) (b) of the Rules, 1991, the dismissal order has been passed against the husband of the petitioner, which was affirmed by the appellate and revisional authority.
I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the orders impugned herein. Since, the husband of the petitioner is a habitual absentee without any sanction of leave, he is not entitled to alter the punishment to compulsory retirement and the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Jaikaran Singh (supra) is not applicable to the person, who is a habitual absentee.
The Writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to cost.
Order Date :- 28.2.2023 Noman