Deepak Singh Bhandari vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

Alok Singh, J.—Present writ petition is filed assailing the order dated 13.05.2010, passed by the Superintendent of Police, Tehri Garhwal whereby petitioner was dismissed from the services and order dated 14.10.2011 whereby statutory appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and order dated 17.08.2012 whereby statutory revision filed by the petitioner was also dismissed upholding the impugned order of dismissal passed by the Superintendent of Police, Tehri Garhwal. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that petitioner was posted as Constable Police in Uttarakhand Police; son of Shri Chatar Singh Manwal, namely, Dinesh Singh Manwal was unemployed; Chatar Singh Manwal wanted to get his son Dinesh Singh Manwal recruited in Uttarakhand Police; petitioner is from the village of Chatar Singh Manwal and is related to Chatar Singh Manwal; petitioner used to tell Chatar Singh Manwal that petitioner had good relation with his superior Officer and could get his son recruited in Uttarakhand Police for which Chatar Singh Manwal had to pay Rs. 1 lac to the petitioner; believing the petitioner, Chatar Singh Manwal handed over Rs. 1 lac to the petitioner to get his son Dinesh Singh Manwal recruited in the Uttarakhand Police in the year 2007; Dinesh Singh Manwal appeared in the recruitment process, however, could not be recruited; consequently Chatar Singh Manwal demanded his money back, however, petitioner kept on promising to refund the money taken by him from Chatar Singh Manwal but could not refund the money; another son of Chatar Singh Manwal, namely, Suresh Singh Manwal was working as driver with Sandeep Gupta; Suresh Singh Manwal son of Chatar Singh Manwal narrated entire story to Shri Sandeep Gupta; Sandeep Gupta reported the matter to Director General of Police, Uttarakhand as well as to the Chief Minister on 26.05.2009; on the complaint so lodged by Shri Sandeep Gupta, in a preliminary inquiry, prima facie charges levelled against the petitioner found to be proved; therefore, regular inquiry was initiated against the petitioner and Shri G.C. Tamta, Deputy Superintendent of Police/Circle Officer, Rishikesh, Dehradun was appointed as Inquiry Officer; Inquiry Officer issued show cause notice to the petitioner and framed charges against the petitioner; to prove the charges against the petitioner, statement of Chatar Singh Manwal, Shri Dinesh Singh Manwal, Shri Suresh Singh Manwal, Shri Govind Singh and Shri Shoor Veer Singh Pundir were recorded.

Shri Chatar Singh Manwal stated that petitioner has approached him as well as his wife and persuaded them to give Rs. 1 lac to get his younger son Dinesh Singh Manwal recruited in the Uttarakhand Police; believing the petitioner, who was resident of the same village and was related to Chatar Singh Manwal, Chatar Singh Manwal handed over Rs. 1 lac to the petitioner to get his son recruited in the Uttarakhand Police in the month of October, 2007; Dinesh Singh Manwal appeared in the selection process, however, could not be selected, therefore, Chatar Singh Manwal demanded his money back, however, petitioner could not refund the money; consequently, the matter was reported to Sandeep Gupta by another son, namely, Suresh Manwal whereupon Shri Sandeep Gupta reported the matter to the Hon''ble the Chief Minister as well as Director General of Police. It has further been stated that Chatar Singh Manwal has borrowed Rs. 50,000/- from Govind Singh as well as Rs. 30,000/- form Shoor Veer Singh Pundir.

Statements of Govind Singh and Shoor Veer Singh Pundir were also recorded who have supported the statement of Chatar Singh Manwal. Both the witnesses stated that Chatar Singh Manwal has borrowed money from them to give the same to the petitioner to get his son recruited in the Uttarakhand Police.

Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 8th March, 2010 before the disciplinary authority, i.e. Superintendent of Police, Tehri Garhwal to the effect that charges levelled against the petitioner stood proved; however, Inquiry Officer made recommendation to the disciplinary authority that prosecution should be initiated against the petitioner for the offence punishable u/s 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act.

Disciplinary authority, i.e. Superintended of Police, Tehri Garhwal did not agree with the Inquiry Officer on the point of punishment and had opined that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, dismissal of the petitioner seems to be justified. Therefore, second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the Disciplinary authority on 30th April, 2010 along with copy of the inquiry report to show cause as to why petitioner should not be dismissed from the services under Rule 14(1)(a)(2) of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991.

Petitioner submitted his reply to the show-cause notice, however, learned Disciplinary Authority did not find reply to the show-cause notice satisfactory and ultimately passed the impugned order dismissing the petitioner from the services. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner filed statutory appeal which was also dismissed and thereafter revision was preferred which was also dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court by filing the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

I have heard Mr. Amar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.D. Kandpal, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State.

It is now settled position of law that while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court must be slow in reversing the findings of fact recorded by the Inquiry Officer or disciplinary authority unless and until same is found to be perverse. Findings of fact recorded in the disciplinary proceedings should not be upset merely because two views are possible on the same set of evidence. However, this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can look into as to whether in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case punishment awarded against the petitioner is excessive.

There is no dispute that petitioner is resident of the same village where Chatar Singh Manwal and his family resides. It is also not in dispute that petitioner is related to Chatar Singh Manwal. Although, as per petitioner, false complaint was lodged against him due to family dispute with Chatar Singh Manwal, however, there is nothing on record to show as to what was the dispute between them. Enmity between petitioner and Chatar Singh Manwal is not proved. There seems to be no valid ground for false accusation.

Chatar Singh Manwal and Suresh Singh Manwal have made statement to the effect that petitioner demanded and accepted 1 lac rupee to get Suresh Singh Manwal recruited in Police Force; money was borrowed from Govind Singh and Shoor Veer Singh for that purpose. Govind Singh and Shoor Veer Singh also supported version of Chatar Singh. Undisputedly, on the same time, Suresh Singh appeared in the selection process but could not be recruited. It is not made clear as to why Govind Singh and Shoor Veer Singh made statements against the petitioner. Having gone through entire record, in my humble opinion, finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer seems to be justified.

Demanding and accepting the money to get someone recruited in the Police Force is a serious misconduct. Disciplinary police force needs honest, brave and competent persons. Therefore, punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, seems to be totally justified. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.