Bhudeo Prasad Sharma vs State of U.P. and Others

Ravi S. Dhavan, J.—The Petitioner is a constable in the police department of the State of Uttar Pradesh. He challenges an order of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, (City), Banda, Respondent No. 3, dated 23 November, 1992, by which he has been reverted to the lower pay scale for a period of three years as a measure of punishment. The contention of the Petitioner is that the officer who passed the order of punishment did not have the authority to do so within the meaning of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. The contention on behalf of the Petitioner is that his appointing authority is the Superintendent of Police and, thus, the order of punishment by the Deputy Superintendent of Police is without Jurisdiction.

The issue in the present writ petition, in so far as the High Court is concerned, is only the aspect whether the Court ought to interfere upon examining the record on a writ of certiorari. The aspect that the order of punishment which has been passed is by an authority lower in rank than the authority which could pass the order is not the only aspect in the writ petition. The gravamen of the charge against the Petitioner was of indiscipline at a parade on 28 March, 1988. The Petitioner was charged for coming to the parade in an intoxicated state and not being able to hold himself and participate in the parade. He was sent for a medical examination. The Medical Officer, Incharge of the District Hospital, certified that the Petitioner was breathing out and smelling of alcohol, though he may be in a conscious state. In paragraph 9 of the writ petition, the Petitioner states that the Medical Officer, Incharge of the District Hospital, Banda, had clearly disclosed that the Petitioner was not in a state of drunkenness. This is not the correct perspective. The Petitioner does not state that he had not taken alcohol before falling in line for a parade. In paragraph 10'' of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Police Administration, the averment is to the effect that the charge of taking liquor has been fully established against , the Petitioner In pursuance of the medical report. In paragraph 9 of the rejoinder-affidavit, the Petitioner avoids a clear affirmation to the effect that he had not taken a drink before he was required to attend the parade and the only submission is to the effect that the charge against the Petitioner has not been duly established.

The issue which remains is that the Petitioner, according to the medical report, had consumed alcohol before reporting for the parade and was found to be in such a stage that he was unable to fall in line at the parade. The medical examination certified it so. The rest of the proceedings which were Initiated by the department were consequential.

When a writ of certiorari is invoked, the grounds for interference by the High Court amongst others, are on a manifest error apparent on the face of the record, lack of jurisdiction on the action which is impugned, amongst other factors, not attracted in the present case. It is not. the contention of the Petitioner that an action could not be taken against him. The issue only is whether the impugned action taken by the Deputy Superintendent of Police could result in a punishment which he faces. The record reveals that on whatever action the Deputy Superintendent of Police had taken, it was ratified by the appointing authority. May be, the contention of the Petitioner may at best be taken that there was an irregularity, but regard being had to the record itself, the issue inevitably was of what action ought to be taken when clearly the Petitioner had violated the regimental discipline and reported for parade after having taken alcohol. In the circumstances, it is settled principle of a writ of certiorari that it is not every irregularity which the High Court will interfere. The gravamen of the charge is not in issue.

This is not a matter in which the High Court would like to interfere.

In the circumstances, the writ of certiorari sought by the Petitioner is denied.

The writ petition fails and is dismissed.

There will be no order on costs.