Back
2019 Supreme(All) 2176
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD (LUCKNOW BENCH)
ANIL KUMAR, SAURABH LAVANIA, JJ.
State of U.P.and Ors. – Appellant
Versus
U.P. State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow and Ors. – Respondents
Service Bench No. 6880 of 2019
Decided On : 17-10-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : C.S.C.
For the Respondents: C.S.C., Ganesh Kumar Gupta and Manish Kumar
Headnote:
Animal Cruelty Act, - Truck was intercepted by the police of the police-station Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar. It was found that in the said truck cows and bullocks were being carried for slaughtering. When the police interrogated the driver of the truck, namely, other persons present in the truck, they stated that claimant/respondent no. 2 by putting his motorcycle was facilitating the smooth movement of the truck so that the cattle present in the truck may be taken to Bihar for slaughtering. In view of the said fact, an F.I.R. was lodged on the same day in case crime no. 1247 at police-station. After investigation, the Investigating officer has submitted charge-sheet before the court concerned. Accordingly, a case no. 1A and case no. 1354 as case crime no., Police Station was registered. By means of order, Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court no. 3 acquitted the claimant-respondent no. 2 and other persons from the charges levelled against them. The claimant-respondent no. 2 filed a claim petition no. 1035 challenging the punishment order, appellate order and revisional order before the Tribunal. By order the Tribunal allowed the claim petition of the claimant-respondent no. 2 and directed to reinstate the claimant-respondent no. 2 in service and further directed that so far as the matter in respect to back wages for the period from dismissal in service to the period of reinstatement in service is concerned, the competent authority shall pass a speaking order within three month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order – Held the learned counsel appearing for the respondent in these appeals argued that the circumstances of the two sets of cases were almost identical and therefore in the facts of this case, the directions of the High Court were perfectly in order. They pointed out that the other three employees had also denied the charges in the first instance, in their replies to the charge sheets served upon them. For some curious reasons the Appellant-Bank did not hold any common enquiry even when the charges leveled in all six charge-sheets were identical. Instead the Bank first picked up only the Respondents herein, and held the enquiry against them. It is only after in the enquiry the charges were established against the Respondents and the punishment of dismissal was imposed on them, that the enquiry against the other three employees was commenced. That at this stage, knowing the fate of their cases, those three employees accepted the charges and tendered unconditional apologies.
Facts of The Case:
It is made clear that such a comparison is permissible only when the other employee(s) who is given lighter punishment was a co-delinquent. Such a comparison is not permissible by citing the cases of other employees, as precedents, in all together different departmental enquiries."
Finding of The Court:
For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered opinion that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by Tribunal. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
Result: Appeal Allowed.
ORDER :
Anil Kumar, J.
1. Heard Sri Manjeev Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners/State and Sri Manish Kumar, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ganesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the claimant-respondent no. 2/Sushil Kumar Mishra.
2. By means of present writ petition, petitioners have prayed for quashing of the impugned judgment and order dated 4.7.2018 passed by U.P. State Public Service Tribunal, Indira Bhawan, Lucknow (herein after referred as the 'Tribunal') in Claim Petition No. 1035 of 2014 (Sushil Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and others).
3. Facts, in brief, as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners are that on 2.11.2011 a Truck having registration no. RJ-14 UB3210 was intercepted by the police of the police-station Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar. It was found that in the said truck cows and bullocks were being carried for slaughtering. When the police interrogated the driver of the truck, namely, Ram Kumar son of Prem Singh and other persons present in the truck, they stated that claimant/respondent no. 2 by putting his motorcycle was facilitating the smooth movement of the truck so that the cattle present in the truck may be taken to Bihar for slaughtering.
4. In view of the said fact, an F.I.R. was lodged on the same day i.e. on 2.11.2011 in case crime no. 1247 of 2011 at police-station Chakeri District Kanpur under section 11 of the Animal Cruelty Act and 3/5 and 8 of Cow Slaughter Act.
5. After investigation, the Investigating officer has submitted charge-sheet before the court concerned. Accordingly, a case no. 1A of 2012 (State Vs. Sushil Kumar Mishra) and case no. 1354A of 2012 (State Vs. Gyanandra Bahadur Singh and Sunil Kumar Shukla) as case crime no. 1247 of 2011 under Section 3/8, 5Ka/34 Cow Slaughter Act and section 11/34 of Animal Cruelty Act, Police Station Chakeri District Kanpur Nagar was registered. By means of order dated 28.3.2017, Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court no. 3 Kanpur Nagar acquitted the claimant-respondent no. 2 and other persons from the charges levelled against them.
6. In the meantime, under rule 14(1) of U.P. Police Officer of Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rule, 1991 (herein after referred as the 'Rules, 1991') a departmental enquiry was initiated against the claimant-respondent no. 2 and a charge-sheet dated 21.02.2012 was issued to the claimant-respondent no. 2, to which he submitted a reply on 3.3.2012. Thereafter enquiry officer conducted disciplinary proceeding in the matter in question and submit his report dated 27.9.2012 to the punishing authority. On 29.9.2012 D.I.G./S.S.P., Kanpur Nagar/punishing authority issued a show cause notice to the claimant-respondent no. 2 alongwith enquiry report, to which he submitted his reply. By order dated 23.5.2013, punishing authority/S.S.P. Kanpur Nagar dismissed the claimant- respondent. no. 2 from service.
7. Aggrieved by the order dated 23.5.2013, claimant-respondent no. 2 filed an appeal before Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kanpur Zone, Kanpur Nagar, the same was dismissed vide order dated 30.6.2013.
8. Against the orders dated 23.5.2013 and 30.6.2013, claimant-respondent no. 2 filed revision, the same was also dismissed by Inspector General of Police, Kanpur Zone, Kanpur by order dated 24.1.2014.
9. The claimant-respondent no. 2 filed a claim petition no. 1035 of 2014 challenging the punishment order dated 23.5.2013, appellate order dated 30.6.2013 and revisional order dated 24.1.2014 before the Tribunal. By order dated 4.7.2018 the Tribunal allowed the claim petition of the claimant-respondent no. 2 and directed to reinstate the claimant-respondent no. 2 in service and further directed that so far as the matter in respect to back wages for the period from dismissal in service to the period of reinstatement in service is concerned, the competent authority shall pass a speaking order within three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.
10. Sri Manjeev Shukla learned coun
