IMPORTANT POINT
The dismissal of a police officer based on departmental proceedings was unjustified as the charges were not proven, and acquittal in criminal proceedings must be considered.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Umesh Vats, learned counsel assisted by Shri Balwant Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant and Shri Ratan Deep Mishra, learned Standing Counsel along with Shri Piyush Shukla, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents

2. Present special appeal has been preferred assailing the validity of the impugned judgment and order dated 19.10.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ-A No.40893 of 2010 (Const. No.118 Awadhesh Kumar Pandey v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.), which, for ready reference, is reproduced in entirety as under:-

"1. Heard Shri Rajesh Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Girijesh Kumar Tripathi, learned standing counsel for the State respondents.

2. This writ petition has been preferred for seeking quashing of the impugned orders dated 10.5.2009, 10.9.2009 and 10.5.2010 passed by respondent nos. 2,3 and 4 respectively through which the services of the petitioner has been terminated.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the he was duly selected and appointed as Constable in Civil police and was posted at police station Bakhira District Sant Kabir Nagar. On 12.9.2008, the petitioner was assigned special duty and attached with Circle officer, Mehdawal and when he was relieved from the special duty by the Circle Officer, Mehdawal he fallen ill and came for taking bed rest at his rented accommodation, where some altercation took place between the petitioner and his landlord and at the same time Additional Superintendent of Police (A.S.P) Sant Kabir Nagar was passing and seen the crowed near the house of the petitioner, he stopped there and on wrong information that was given by some person against the petitioner that he was having illicit relationship with a women, the A.S.P, directed to arrest the petitioner and that women also and a case was registered bearing case crime no.2158 of 2008 under Section 294 I.P.C in police station Kotwali Khalilabad, District Sant Kabir Nagar. The petitioner was released on bail on the very next date as there was not a single person of public or nearby locality to support the prosecution version of the F.I.R. Chargesheet dated 18.11.2008 was forwarded and filed in the court on 11.12.1988 and after taking cognizance, Criminal Case No.6478 of 2008 was registered between State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Awadhesh Pandey under Section 294 IPC before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Sant Kabir Nagr but as the A.S.P. was annoyed with the petitioner, he was suspended the petitioner on 23.9.2008 and after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, he was reinstated in service with effect from 29.11.2008 and continued on duty till his dismissal from service on 10.5.2009. After registration of the first information report, a disciplinary proceedings were also initiated against the petitioner and served with a show cause notice also. Petitioner submitted his written reply on 6.11.2008 and also prayed to produce two witnesses namely Shri Vinod Rai and Arendra Rai in defence of his case but the same was not accepted by the Enquiry Officer and submitted enquiry report dated 19.4.2009. Respondent No.2 had again issued show cause notice on 22.4.2009 granting fifteen days time to file his reply to the enquiry report. Since the petitioner was suffering from hypertension w.e.f. 20.4.2008 to 10.5.2009 hence he could not appear personally before the Superintendent of Police. Petitioner sent his explanation dated 8.5.2009 by Blaze Courier Ltd, which was received in the office of Superintendent of Police on the same dated i.e, 8.5.2009. Respondent no.2 thereafter passed an order of dismissal from service on 10.5.2009 totally ignoring the detailed reply of the petitioner dated 8.5.2009.

4. Against the order of dismissal dated 10.5.2009, petitioner preferred an appeal before Deputy Inspector General of Police, Basti Region (respondent no.3) alongwith his medical certificate showing that he was continuously ill w.e.f. 2