Madan Pal Singh vs Superintendent of Police and Others

V.M. Sahai, J.—The petition has been filed against adverse entry awarded to the Petitioner who was a constable clerk at police station, Kurara, Hamirpur for misbehaving with Swamidin, his wife and son in the police station after their arrest on 16.2.1996. The appeal and revision of Petitioner was dismissed.

The proceedings were started on complaint filed by Swamidin and others on 27.3.1996 to the Government which was referred by U.P. SC/ST Commission to Senior Superintendent of Police, Hamirpur. In the show-cause notice based on the allegations in the complaint it was stated that the Petitioner and two other constables came to the complainant''s house near about 9.00-10.00 p.m. on 16.2.1996 and forcibly took away the sons of complainant. He and his wife immediately went to the police station, where he, his wife and his sons were beaten severely by fist, leg and shoes. It was also alleged that station officer and police constables deprived the complainant of money and jewellery of his wife. The Senior Superintendent of Police in inquiry report held that from entries in general diary maintained in the police station it was clear that departure of constable Kanhiya Lal, Sahadev and Krishna Avtar is recorded at 9.00-10 p.m. on 16.2.1996. The entry of 17.2.1996 at 00.15 a.m. shows return of the constables along with three accused Swamidin, his son and his wife who were arrested under Sections 151/107/116. I.P.C. The Senior Superintendent of Police held that from material on record it was clear that Petitioner was one of the constables who had gone to the house of Swamidin and arrested them. He further held that the Petitioner, the station officer and other constables were guilty of misbehaving with Swamidin, his son and his wife and beating them is proved. The finding was endorsed by the Senior Superintendent of Police after issuing show-cause notice to the Petitioner. In appeal filed by the station officer it was held that from general diary entries in police station it is clear that he left the police station at 7.25 p.m. on 16.2.1996 and returned at 11.30 p.m. whereas the incident of beating the complainants is stated to have taken place at 10.30 p.m. thereafter his presence was not established. His appeal was consequently allowed. The allegation of snatching of money and jewellery was not proved. But the appeal of the Petitioner was dismissed as the entries of general diary are not made minute to minute. The appellate authority held that entries in general diary about arrival, departure and registration of crime is recorded only when necessity for it arises. The appellate authority further held that from entries in police station it was not established that records were maintained minute to minute.

1 have heard Sri Rajiv Sharma counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Vikas Chandra Tripathi standing counsel for the Respondents. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner�s argument that the appellate authority applied different standards for the station officer and the Petitioner is correct. The appeal of the station officer was allowed because the G.D. entries in police station did not establish that he was present at 10.30 p.m. Whereas in the case of Petitioner it was held that GD entries in police station are made according to necessity and the entries in police station were not made as required by rules. The appellate authority is a very senior officer. The observation made by him are contrary to rules. The order cannot be maintained.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner is right in his submission that the complainant had made allegations of beating and misbehaving without any justification. Normally, this Court does not examine the facts in such matters but I permitted the counsel for the Petitioner to place it as I found that the order of appellate authority is totally erroneous and the approach of the authorities may not result in injustice to the Petitioner. The complainant did not make any allegation of beating even when he was produced before the Magistrate on the next day. He did not get himself or any member of his family examined. If they were severely beaten by fist, leg and shoes as alleged it could have been very well established by medical examination on the next day. But what has persuaded me to interfere is that in the GD of 16.2.1996 the departure noted is of Kanhaiya Lai, Sahdev and Krishna Avatar. It does not mention name of Petitioner. The Petitioner was a constable clerk. He would not have gone for patrolling. Yet the complainant mentioned his name that he was one of the constables who had come to his house and arrested him and his son. What is surprising is that even the Senior Superintendent of Police has recorded the finding in utter disregard of the entries in police station. The appellate authority tried to explain this infirmity by recording a finding contrary to the rules.

I am satisfied from perusal of the records that the findings recorded by the Respondents are such that it cannot be maintained.

In the result the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 7.3.1997 passed by Respondent No. 1 as well as order dated 26.9.1997 passed by Respondent No. 3 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) and that of revisional authority dated 20.12.1997 passed by Respondent No. 4 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) are hereby quashed.

The parties shall bear their own costs.