Sanjay Singh vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

Nirmal Yadav, J.—Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Mr. Dinesh Gahatori, standing counsel for State of Uttarakhand / respondents.

Petitioner was appointed as Constable u/s 2 of the Police Act, 1861 and was posted at police station - Dalanwala, Dehradun. One Adharshveer lodged first information report on 04.01.2009 against Petitioner and another constable namely Brij Mohan Kumar, in police station - Patel Nagar, Dehradun u/s 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act. It was alleged in the complaint that Petitioner and his companion constable had taken Rs. 3000/- as bribe from the complainant, as he was found staying with a girl in his room. Services of the Petitioner were terminated by Senior Superintendent of Police, Dehradun vide order dated 06.01.2009 without giving any chargesheet or conducting inquiry. Petitioner preferred appeal before Inspector General, Garhwal Region, Dehradun against the termination order, which was dismissed by him on 02.09.2009.

It is pleaded that impugned order dated 06.01.2009 and 02.09.2009 are illegal and arbitrary. It is further pleaded that the authorities have terminated the services of Petitioner without issuing any charge-sheet and affording opportunity of hearing to him. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further contended that co-accused Brij Mohan Kumar filed writ petition No. 1069 of 2009 (SS) before this Court and this Court vide judgment and order dated 18.11.2010 allowed the petition and quashed the order dated 06.01.2009 and 02.09.2009 passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Dehradun and IG, Garhwal Region, Dehradun respectively.

Learned standing counsel has fairly conceded that the controversy in the case at hand is similar to that of above cited case vide which impugned orders qua co-accused Brijmohan Kumar have been set aside by this Court.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances mentioned above, impugned order dated 06.01.2009 and 02.09.2009 passed by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are hereby quashed. It is, however, made clear that Respondent authorities are at liberty to proceed in the matter after affording opportunity to the Petitioner and following the procedure as laid down in the law.