JUDGMENT :

AJIT KUMAR, J.

1. Both above petitions are being heard and decided together as they raise common question of law and facts.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

3. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner in Writ (A) No. 17855 of 2022 has argued that charge-sheet that was issued to the petitioner leveling certain charges to set up in motion disciplinary proceedings, had no approval of the competent authority as per the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of Sub-ordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 1991'). This Court while entertaining this petition noted the ground raised by petitioner and directed that the disciplinary proceedings pursuant to the charge-sheet in question shall abide by decision of the petition.

4. It transpires that while the matter remained pending before this Court and counter affidavit was filed, the department proceeded to issue another charge-sheet and now this time by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Agra with the approval of the higher competent authority. This charge-sheet has now come to be challenged in the writ petition being Writ (A) No. 12438 of 2023 on the ground that once the competence of authority in issuing charge-sheet was already under challenge before this Court and the charge-sheet had not been stayed, respondents were not justified in issuing another charge-sheet, this time, may be, with the approval of the higher authority.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner while defending the first writ petition and assailing the charge-sheet has drawn the attention of the Court towards Rule 14 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 that provide for procedure for conducting departmental inquiry. According to him the procedure prescribes that the charge-sheet shall be issued and inquiry be conducted in terms of the Appendix-1 to the rules that lays down the procedure.

6. Per contra, it is argued by Mr. S.K. Pal, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel that the rules are absolutely silent as to whether a charge-sheet is required to be approved further by the higher authority and the inquiry officer would not be competent in the matter. He submits rather there is a form that has been prescribed for issuance of charge-sheet under the Police Act, 1861 that authorizes even the inquiry officer to issue charge-sheet because it is he who has to sign the document containing article of charges and, therefore, he submits that petitioner is not justified in assailing the charge-sheet on the ground that it was not approved by the disciplinary authority. However he submits that now this time the charge-sheet has stood approved by the higher authority and the charges are the same as leveled in the earlier charge-sheet impugned in writ petition being Writ (A) No. 17855 of 2022 petitioner should not have any grievance.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the records and having gone to the relevant provisions of the rules as cited by the learned counsel for the respective parties and the charge-sheet that have been challenged in both the writ petitions, I find in the first place that the charges are same except with the modality that this time approved by higher competent authority while the earlier charge-sheet was issued by the inquiry officer.

8. In such above view of the matter, therefore, the controversy should not detain this Court any longer as once the charge-sheet has stood substituted by another charge-sheet, which according to the petitioner, would be a competent one, now the petitions can be disposed of with a direction to the authorities/disciplinary authority to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law. However, it would be relevant at the same time to reproduce Rule 14 of the Rules, 1991 that runs as under:

“14. Procedure for conducting departmental proceedings:

(1) s