The court found that the punishment imposed was not shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the charges and dismissed the writ petition.

SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

( 1 ) BOTH the writ petitions are connected involving common question of fact and law and thus as requested by learned counsel for the parties have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

( 2 ) THE reliefs sought in these writ petitions are to quash the inquiry report dated 14. 12. 2001 and also the order of dismissal dated 6. 7. 2000 passed by the respondent no. 2 i. e. Senior Superintendent of Police, Saharanpur, appellate order dated 23. 11. 2002 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of police, Sahanapur Range i. e. The respondent no. 3 and revisional order dated 2. 12. 2003 passed by respondent no. 4, i. e. , Inspector General of police, Meerut Zone, Meerut. A writ of mandamus has also been sought by the petitioners directing the respondents to treat them in continuous service since the date of dismissal and pay arrears of salary and other benefits.

( 3 ) THE necessary facts giving rise to these petitions are that both the petitioners were enrolled as Constable in U. P. Police Force and were assigned duty to transport a prisoner, Rashid from Saharanpur Jail to court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari, New Delhi on 27. 4. 2001. After producing the said prisoner in the trial court, the petitioners were bringing him back and boarded Chhattisgarh Express in the night of 28. 4. 2001 for onward journey from New Delhi to Saharanpur. In the midnight, near Deoband, the said prisoner escaped from the custody of the petitioners. They lodged a report on 29. 4. 2001 at about 1. 30 p. m. At P. S. Deoband. The petitioners were proceeded departmentally by issuing charge sheet containing only one charge that they were guilty of gross dereliction of duty and negligence on account whereof the prisoner, Rashid escaped from their custody on 27. 4. 2001. The oral inquiry was conducted by, Sri Puspak Jyoti, Superintendent of Police (Rural), Saharanpur who submitted his report dated 14. 12. 2001 holding them guilty and recommending reduction in the pay scale by placing at the bottom for a period of three years. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Saharanpur issued a show cause notice dated 28. 5. 2002 wherein agreeing with the finding of the inquiry officer that the petitioners were guilty of gross negligence, he proposed the punishment of dismissal. The petitioners submitted their reply dated 15. 6. 2002 whereafter the disciplinary authority i. e. Senior Superintendent of Police, Saharanpur passed the punishment order of dismissal dated 6. 7. 2002. The appeal preferred by the petitioners was dismissed by the respondent no. 3 and revision was rejected by the respondent no. 4 whereagainst these writ petitions have been filed.

( 4 ) THE respondents have filed counter affidavit in Writ Petition No. 15730 of 2004 wherein the facts relating to departmental inquiry are not disputed but the contention of the petitioners that they rendered an unblemished service carrier has been disputed and in respect to the petitioner, subhash Chandra it has been stated that he was awarded various punishments namely fine of Rs. 500/- in 1993, censure entry in 1994 and 14 minor punishments in various years between 1990 to 2001. It is also stated that after escape of the prisoner, Rashid from the custody of the petitioners they were placed under suspension and thereafter the disciplinary proceedings were conducted.

( 5 ) REJOINDER affidavit has been filed in the Writ Petition No. 15730 of 2004 wherein the facts stated in the writ petition have been reiterated. Sri Rakesh Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners requested that since the facts and issues involved in both the writ petitions are common, on the basis of the pleadings in Writ Petition No. 15727 of 2004 both the matter may be heard and it is agreed by the learned Standing counsel. Thus with the consent of learned counsel for the parties I have heard both the petitions together and am deciding the same.

( 6 ) SRI Rakesh Pandey, learned counsel for

Click Here to Read the rest of this document