Deep Singh Constable No. 114 C.P. and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Deep Singh Constable No. 114 C.P. and anr. vs State of U.P. and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Mar 31, 2008

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/493442

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/493442
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: Arun Tandon, J.
Decided On: Mar 31, 2008
Subject: Service

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 [C.A. No. 1/1894]. Section 4; [Sushil Harkauli, S.K. Singh & Krishna Murari, JJ] Acquisition of land Held, Court cannot issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the State Authorities to acquire a particular land. Land acquisition is not purely ministerial act to be performed by executive No...

Key legal issue: Service

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Deep Singh Constable No. 114 C.P. and anr.

Respondent

State of U.P. and ors.

Legal References

Cases Referred: S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India
Reported In: [2008(117)FLR700]

Excerpt

.....however, be open to the court in exercise of that power to invite the attention of the executive to any public purpose and the need for land for meeting that public purpose and to require the executive to take a decision, even a reasoned decision, with regard to the same in accordance with the statutory provisions, perhaps even within a reasonable time frame. however, the power of the court under article 226 must necessarily stop at that. thereafter, if the decision taken by the executive is capable of challenge and, there exist appropriate legal grounds for such challenge, it may also be open to the court to quash the decision and to require reconsideration. but no direction in the nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by the court under article 226 to the executive to necessarily acquire a particular area of a particular piece of land for a particular public purpose. section 4; compulsory acquisition of land powers of state government held, renewal of lease in favour of petitioners would not take away power of state government of compulsory acquisition of land. renewal of lease would at best be taken into consideration for determining quantum of compensation. - 2007 (1) adj 143, as well as in view of the division bench judgment of this court in the case of state of u......that it was practically impossible to hold an enquiry in respect of the charge as noticed in the order. in absence of reasons the impugned order cannot be legally sustained.3. standing counsel on behalf of the state-respondents submits that in the facts of the case, it would be in the fitness of things that the impugned order may be quashed and the matter may be remanded to the authority concern to hold the departmental enquiry and to pass an order in a time bound manner.counsel for the parties agree that the writ petition be disposed of at this stage of the proceedings without calling for any affidavits.4. from the impugned order it is apparently clear that absolutely no reasons have been recorded for the conclusion arrived that it was not practically possible to hold departmental enquiry oh the charge as noticed against the petitioner in the impugned order. reasons are links between the facts and the findings recorded. in absence of reasons the order passed cannot be legally justified. the hon'ble supreme court in the case of s.n. mukherjee v. union of india : air 1990 sc 1984, has hold that recording of reasons in an order which visit a party with evil civil consequences, is one of the principles of natural justice and in absence thereto the order cannot be sustained. even otherwise under the provision of rule 8(2)(b) of rules 1991 such reason have necessarily to be recorded in writing. this court has no hesitation to record that the order dated 13.3.2008 fails to satisfy the said requirements of law. accordingly the order dated 13.3 2008 is hereby quashed.5. however, it is provided that the senior superintendent of police, agra shall hold an enquiry into the alleged misconduct as noticed in the impugned order against the petitioner strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. the enquiry proceedings shall be completed and final orders may be passed within three months, thereafter.writ petition stands allowed subject to the observations made.....

Full Judgment

Arun Tandon, J.

1. Petitioner who are two in number are employed as Constable in Civil Police of the State of U.P. They are aggrieved by an order passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Agra dated 13.3.2008 whereunder in exercise of power under Rule 8(2)(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules 1991), a decision has been taken to dispense with the departmental enquiry and to dismiss the petitioner as has been noticed.

2. Counsel for the petitioner with reference to the judgment of this Court in the case of Raghunath Singh v. State of U.P. and Oer. 2007 (1) ADJ 143, as well as in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of U.P. and Ors. v. Chandrika Prasad 2006 (1) ESC 374, contends that no reason recorded for arriving at a conclusion that it was practically impossible to hold an enquiry in respect of the charge as noticed in the order. In absence of reasons the impugned order cannot be legally sustained.

3. Standing Counsel on behalf of the State-respondents submits that in the facts of the case, it would be in the fitness of things that the impugned order may be quashed and the matter may be remanded to the authority concern to hold the departmental enquiry and to pass an order in a time bound manner.

Counsel for the parties agree that the writ petition be disposed of at this stage of the proceedings without calling for any affidavits.

4. From the impugned order it is apparently clear that absolutely no reasons have been recorded for the conclusion arrived that it was not practically possible to hold departmental enquiry oh the charge as noticed against the petitioner in the impugned order. Reasons are links between the facts and the findings recorded. In absence of reasons the order passed cannot be legally justified. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India : AIR 1990 SC 1984, has hold that recording of reasons in an order which visit a party with evil civil consequences, is one of the principles of natural justice and in absence thereto the order cannot be sustained. Even otherwise under the provision of Rule 8(2)(b) of Rules 1991 such reason have necessarily to be recorded in writing. This Court has no hesitation to record that the order dated 13.3.2008 fails to satisfy the said requirements of law. Accordingly the order dated 13.3 2008 is hereby quashed.

5. However, it is provided that the Senior Superintendent of Police, Agra shall hold an enquiry into the alleged misconduct as noticed in the impugned order against the petitioner strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. The enquiry proceedings shall be completed and final orders may be passed within three months, thereafter.

Writ petition stands allowed subject to the observations made herein above.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2008 Same Parties Deep Singh Constable No. 114 C.P. and anr. vs State of U.P. a... Same Subject Service Same Judge Arun Tandon, J.

Service