The main legal point established in the judgment is that police officers are required to adhere to disciplinary rules, including obtaining prior permission for certain actions, and that the punishment imposed should be proportionate to the misconduct.

Binod Kumar Roy, M.P.Singh

1. THE petitioner, a Removed Police Constable, has come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 1.12.1989 of removal of his service passed by the Superintendent of Police, Fatehpur (as contained in Annexure-4), the appellate order dated 12.1.1991 dismissing his appeal preferred against the aforementioned order (as contained in Annexure-6A) passed by the D.I.G. of Police, Allahabad Region and the order dated 14.7.1995 passed by the U. P. Public Services Tribunal rejecting his claim petition (as contained in Annexure-6).

2. HIS case set up in this writ petition and the supplementary-affidavit dated 11.7.2000 is to this effect :

(i) In the year 1973 he was transferred to the Armed Force, of the U. P. Police. (ii) Son of one Anis alias Nawab, resident of village Matinpur, was murdered sometime in February, 1988. Apprehending threat to his life, Anis made an application before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Fatehpur (copy appended as Annexure-S.A. 1) for being provided police security. The S.S.P., Fatehpur acceded to his request and by his order dated 18.3.1988 provided 24 hours security by posting two constables at his residence. Pursuant to this order on 20.4.1988, the petitioner and another Constable Munni Lal were posted at the residence of Anis. (iii) A first information report was lodged with police station, Kotwali, Fatehpur, against eight persons including the aforesaid Anis in respect of an incident which had taken place at about 12.30 p.m. on 24.4.1988 on which Case Crime No. 168 of 1988, State v. Mohd. Abdul Salam and others, under Sections 302/147/148 and 149, I.P.C. was registered. (iv) Since the accused Anis was at his residence at the time of committal of the incident mentioned in the F.I.R. of Case Crime No. 168 of 1988 in presence of the petitioner and aforesaid Munni Lal and as such there was no question of his being present at the place of alleged incident and thus he and the aforesaid Munni Lal filed affidavits in the bail application filed by Anis in the Court of C.J.M., Fatehpur (Copy appended as Annexure-5) certifying that he was present at his residence in presence of the deponents. (v) He was served with a charge-sheet dated 7.3.1989 by the Circle Officer Nagar, Fatehpur to the effect that in the year 1988 when he was deputed in Police Line, Fatehpur and was on duty for maintaining peace in village Matinpur, police station, Hussainganj, Fatehpur, he without taking permission of any higher officer had filed the affidavit in favour of accused Anis in Case Crime No. 168 of 1988. (vi) After detailed enquiry, he was found guilty, his work aforementioned as indicative of dereliction of duty, laxity, carelessness and indiscipline and was ordered to file his explanation as to whether he accepts the aforementioned charges or does not accept within eight days of the receipt of the same. (vii) He filed his reply. He also filed several applications before the inquiry officer with a prayer that he be supplied copies of the documents and the statement of witnesses on which the department intends to rely for his alleged misconduct. He, however, was not supplied any copy of the documents and statements of witnesses which seriously prejudiced him as he failed to file his adequate reply. (viii) The inquiry officer submitted his report dated 23.10.1989 before the Superintendent of Police, Fatehpur, who in his turn issued notice on 27.10.1989 to the petitioner (as contained in Annexure-2) calling upon him to show cause as to why he should not be removed from the police force. (ix) The petitioner submitted his reply dated 3.11.1989 (as contained in Annexure-3). (x) Respondent No. 3, vide his order dated 1.12.1989, removed the petitioner without considering his reply and adherence to the requirement of paragraph 495 of the police Regulations. (xi) The charge was not misconduct under the Police Act or the Regulation framed thereunder or under the provisions of U. P. Government Servant