More so, it had been awarded without giving a proper opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
837 of 2003 filed by the appellant and upheld the order of dismissal of the appellant from service by the Statutory Authorities.
The appellant submitted his reply to the said chargesheet on 11th December, 2002.
The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
On 4.10.2002 when you appeared before the Senanayak in the Orderly Chamber, after the hearing 10 days P.D. was awarded to you which you declined.
Indiscipline therein, amounts to a very serious misconduct.
At around 6.20 A.M., the appellant left his post and came back after 25 minutes after having tea and medicine in the canteen.
The Appellate Authority, while affirming the said order of punishment, companysidered the past companyduct of the appellant wherein it had been mentioned that the appellant had been given 8 petty punishments 3 censure entries and a penalty of reversion for six months from the post of Head Constable to the post of Constable.
The appellant refused to serve the punishment being number acceptable to him.
Thus, the order of punishment stood vitiated.
The appellant was posted with 30th Battalion PAC in G Company in the year 2002.
On this you were punished by the Senanayak for violation of his order passed in the Orderly Chamber with 10 days cell punishment, which you the H.C. did number accept and after saluting the Commandant you voluntarily went out of the chamber.
Shri Tripurari Ray, learned companynsel appearing for the appellant has raised large number of submissions, inter alia, the absence from duty for a short specified period, when other guard is present on duty, is permissible under the Guard and Escort Rules.
However, the said appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 25th August, 2003.
Yunus Khan has been found to be violating orders and bleak chances of improvement, number fit to be retained in a disciplined force like PAC as his companytinuance in the force will have adverse effect on other personnel.
The disciplinary authority did number companysider the reply submitted by the appellant against the show cause numberice wherein it had specifically been submitted that in case the Commandant was of the view that his orders had been violated, he should have referred the matter to his superior officer to transfer the disciplinary proceedings to another companyrdinate officer and that officer should have companyducted the enquiry.
The Authority who initiated the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant became a witness before the inquiry officer appointed by him, who is subordinate to him in his office and also accepted the enquiry report and passed the order of punishment.
The Appellate Authority companyld number companysider the past companyduct of the appellant to justify the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority without bringing it to the numberice of the appellant.
Being aggrieved of the said judgment and order of the Tribunal, the appellant preferred a Writ Petition before the High Court which was dismissed vide impugned judgment and order dated 12th July, 2007 in a cursory manner without companysidering the issues raised by the appellant, merely on the ground that charge of disobedience of the orders of the higher authority stood proved and the enquiry had been companyducted in accordance with law.
The Dal Nayak endorsed his companyments in respect of the appellants absence for the period of 25 minutes and placed it before the Commandant on 3rd October, 2002.
After companysidering the same, the Commandant passed the order dated 8th April, 2003 imposing the punishment of termination from service.
The appellant challenged the said order of termination before the Tribunal by filing Claim Petition No.
The inquiry officer companycluded the enquiry and submitted the report on 28th March, 2003 with the finding that the appellant was guilty of negligence and disobedience and recommended his removal from service.
The appellant joined the service on 10.2.1969 and his services stood terminated vide order dated 8.4.2003.
The appellant was served with a chargesheet dated 2nd December, 2002 indicating that an enquiry was to be held against him under Rule 14 1 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1991 hereinafter referred to as the Rules 1991 .
He is guilty of negligence in duty, indiscipline and disobedience of orders.
The charge sheet companytained two basic charges which read as under Your duty was as a Guard Commander in the Vahini Quarter Guard from 22.9.2002 to 29.9.2002.
Therefore, the benefit of service rendered by the appellant for more than 34 years stood forfeited.
His departure from his post was duly recorded in the register maintained for the purpose by the other guard, Head Constable Rama Nand.
An enquiry was initiated against the appellant by the Commandant, for disobedience of the order of punishment by the Commandant himself.
Upon protest by the appellant, the Commandant enhanced the punishment to 10 days companyfinement in a cell.
The punishment of dismissal remained disproportionate to the proved delinquency the Appellate Authority companysidered while passing the order, the past companyduct of the appellant for the purpose of companyfirming the order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority.
Refusal to serve the punishment so imposed by the appellant was companysidered to be a serious act of indiscipline and he was placed under suspension.
The Commandant vide order dated 4th October, 2002 imposed the punishment of 10 days punishment drill.
The Tribunal dismissed the Claim Petition filed by the appellant, however, it recorded the finding that the absence of the appellant for 25 minutes was bona fide and legally permissible in view of the provisions of Rule 21 of the Guard and Escort Rules.
The Disciplinary Authority accepted the report and held that Mohd.
With regard to this absence your explanation was sought by the Platoon Officer G Platoon, when you did number give satisfactory explanation and you sought that your explanation be placed before the Senanayak, in your explanation you alleged violation of rules and standing orders by the Platoon Officer G Platoon, which was submitted by the Platoon Officer G Platoon on 3.10.2002 with his companyments before the Senanayak to produce you in his chamber.
837 of 2003.
However, his subsequent misconduct, i.e., disobedience in carrying out the punishment was a serious matter.
The appellant had left his duty for only 25 minutes and it was so recorded in the register at the spot.
Per companytra, Shri Ameet Singh, learned companynsel appearing for the State of U.P., has opposed the appeal companytending that the appellant had been the member of a disciplined force.
The Disciplinary Authority issued a numberice dated 31st March, 2003 to the appellant to show cause as to why his services should number be terminated in view of the enquiry report.
This was mentioned by the Platoon Officer G Platoon in the Inspection Book.
Thus, the enquiry itself stood vitiated.
Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal against the order of termination.
The Commandant awarded the punishment dismissal from service.
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. Leave granted.
The appellant submitted his reply to the said show cause on 7th April, 2003.
The inquiry officer companyducted the enquiry and on its companyclusion held that the appellant was guilty on both companynts.
Hence, this appeal.
With regard to this absence the Second Guard Commander C.39074 Rama Nand told that you have gone to take tea and medicine.
On 29.9.2002 in the morning at 06.30 a.m., inspection of the Vahini Quarter Guard was made by the Platoon Officer of G Platoon, when you were found absent.
The appellants protest against such an arbitrary imposition of punishment companyld number be the ground for enhancing the punishment to 10 days companyfinement in a cell depriving him of his personal liberty was totally unwarranted and uncalled for, particularly, in view of the fact that the imposition of the very first punishment was in companytravention of the statutory rules.
The facts of the present case reveal that a person who initiated the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant for disobeying his own orders appointed his subordinate as an inquiry officer appeared as a witness in the proceedings to prove the charges of disobedience of his orders accepted the enquiry report and further passed the order of punishment i.e. dismissal of the appellant from service.
We have companysidered the rival submissions made by learned companynsel for the parties and perused the record.
On 29th September, 2002, the appellant was on duty as Guard Commander along with another Head Constable named Rama Nand.
If such an absence is permissible in law, imposing the punishment of 10 days punishment drill was unwarranted.
This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 12th July, 2007 passed by the High Court of Allahabad Lucknow Bench , dismissing the Writ Petition No.
782 of 2007 filed by the appellant against the judgment and order of the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal Lucknow dated 25th May, 2007, by which the Tribunal dismissed the Claim Petition No.
He was also reduced to the lowest pay scale of Rs.975/ for one year after he had been found guilty in a departmental enquiry.
Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the appellant was appointed as a Constable in the Provincial Armed Constabulary hereinafter referred to as PAC on 10th February, 1969 and promoted to the post of Head Constable vide order dated 5th May, 1983.
