Back
2021 Supreme(All) 758
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.
Mohd. Farman – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Service Single Nos. 24979 of 2020, 17225 of 2021
Decided On : 12-08-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mohd. Shujauddin Waris, Abhishek Bose, Sankalp Dewari.
Point of Law: Regulations and policies in regard to personal appearance are not intended to discriminate against religious beliefs nor do they have effect doing so. Their object and purpose is to ensure uniformity, cohesiveness, discipline and order which are indispensable to the force.
Headnote:
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 25 - Suspension order - Superintendent of Police - Petitioner has also assailed suspension order passed by Deputy Inspector General of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police whereby petitioner has been placed suspension in contemplation of departmental inquiry for reason that petitioner despite being member of disciplined force is maintaining his beard and despite specific direction being issued by superior authority to shave beard he did not follow such direction –
Finding of the Court:
Appellant having been enrolled as a member of Air Force was necessarily required to abide by discipline of Force- Regulations and policies in regard to personal appearance are not intended to discriminate against religious beliefs nor do they have effect of doing so - Their object and purpose is to ensure uniformity cohesiveness discipline and order which are indispensable to Air Force as indeed to every Armed Force of Union Court not find any infirmity or illegality in impugned charge-sheet dated issued against petitioner by Senior Superintendent of Police - Court also of considered opinion that departmental inquiry against petitioner should be conducted and concluded to its logical end as directed above judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in may not rescue petitioner inasmuch as allegation levelled in charge-sheet prima facie constitute misconduct subject to specific findings of Inquiry Officer on that –
Result: Petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.
1. Heard Sri. Amit Bose, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri. Abhishek Bose, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.
2. By means of first writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the Circular dated 26.10.2020 issued by the Director General of Police, U.P. Lucknow (Annexure No. 01) whereby the guidelines have been issued in respect of wearing proper uniform and proper appearance warranted for the member of disciplined force.
3. The petitioner has also assailed the suspension order dated 05.11.2020 passed by Deputy Inspector General of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police, Ayodhya (Faizabad) (Annexure No. 02) whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension in contemplation of departmental inquiry for the reason that the petitioner despite being the member of disciplined force is maintaining his beard and despite the specific direction being issued by the superior authority to shave the beard he did not follow such direction.
4. The petitioner has also assailed the order dated 13.11.2020 passed by Deputy Inspector General of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police, Ayodhya (Faizabad) (Annexure No. 03) rejecting the application of the petitioner dated 03.11.2020 whereby the petitioner had sought permission to maintain his beard in accordance with tenets of Muslim religion.
5. Whereas, by means of second Writ Petition (S/S) No. 17225 of 2021 the petitioner has assailed the charge-sheet dated 29.07.2021 issued by Superintendent of Police (Rural Area), Ayodhya (Faizabad) which is contained as Annexure No. 04 to the writ petition.
6. Since the facts of both the cases are common, therefore, both the writ petitions are being decided by the common judgment/order.
7. In the first writ petition so far as the order of suspension dated 05.11.2020 is concerned, it is to be noted here that the charge-sheet has been issued against the petitioner on 29.07.2021 which has been challenged in the second writ petition, therefore, as per my considered opinion if the charge-sheet is issued against any employee who is under suspension, the employee should submit his defence reply taking all pleas and grounds which are available to him enclosing therewith the copies of relevant documents which are necessary for disposal of the issue and the departmental inquiry should be conducted and concluded strictly in accordance with law by following the principals of natural justice with expedition preferably within a period of three months from the date the defence reply to the charge-sheet has been filed. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority may pass final order providing copy of the inquiry report and seeking explanation from the petitioner as per law. Therefore, the suspension order may not be interfered at least for the aforesaid period of three months till the departmental inquiry concludes. However, if the departmental inquiry does not conclude subject to the proper cooperation of the petitioner with the inquiry proceedings within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the defence reply to the charge-sheet, the suspension order shall be kept in abeyance and the petitioner shall be entitled for consequential relief. However, in that case the departmental inquiry may go on and final order may be passed but strictly in accordance with law.
8. So far as the Circular dated 26.10.2020 issued by the Director General of Police, U.P. Lucknow (Annexure No. 01) issuing guidelines in respect of wearing proper uniform and maintaining the appearance in a manner required for member of disciplined force is concerned, I am of the considered opinion that this is a domain of competent authority to issue guidelines in respect of wearing proper uniform and keeping the appearance in a manner required for the members of disciplined force and no interference should be done, inasmuch as, maintaining and wearing proper uniform as well as maintaining physical appearance is one o
