Maintaining Beard By A Member Of Disciplined Force May Not Be Protected Under Article 25: Allahabad High Court
Having Beard By A Member Of Disciplined Force May Not Be Protected Under Article 25: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court has recently observed that non-cutting the beard by a police official despite there being a direction/circular issued by Higher Officials that police personnel should not have a beard, is not only a wrong behavior but the same is misdemeanor, misdeed, and delinquency of such official. The Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan also opined that police force has...
The Allahabad High Court has recently observed that non-cutting the beard by a police official despite there being a direction/circular issued by Higher Officials that police personnel should not have a beard, is not only a wrong behavior but the same is misdemeanor, misdeed, and delinquency of such official.
The Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan also opined that police force has to be a disciplined force and being a law enforcing agency, it is necessary that such force must have a secular image that strengthens the countenance of national integration
Case in brief
The Court was hearing a plea by a Constable with UP Police, Mohd. Farman who assailed a 2020 Circular issued by the Director-General of Police, U.P. whereby certain guidelines were issued in respect of wearing proper uniform and proper appearance warranted for the member of a disciplined force.
Essentially, Constable Farman had been suspended in contemplation of a departmental inquiry for the reason that despite being a member of disciplined force, he is maintaining his beard and despite the specific direction being issued by the superior authority to him to shave the beard he did not follow such direction.
He also challenged his suspension order and the order of the Deputy Inspector General of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police, Ayodhya (Faizabad) wherein his application seeking permission to maintain his beard in accordance with tenets of Muslim religion had been rejected.
Court's order
At the outset, the Court observed that this is the domain of competent authority to issue guidelines in respect of wearing the proper uniform and keeping the appearance in a manner required for the members of disciplined force.
"No interference should be done, inasmuch as, maintaining and wearing a proper uniform as well as maintaining physical appearance is one of the first and foremost requirement of the members of a disciplined force," added the Court.
In this backdrop, the Court did not find any infirmity or illegality in the Circular issued by the DGP.
Likewise, the Court also observed that his application had been rejected in terms of DGP's Circular, therefore, the Court did not find any infirmity or illegality in the said order (rejecting his application to maintain his beard in accordance with the tenets of Muslim religion).
Coming to the inquiry being conducted against him, the Court said that the Inquiry Officer shall conduct and conclude the departmental inquiry strictly in accordance with law, following the principles of natural justice with expedition preferably within a period of three months.
Now, regarding the charge sheet/show cause notice issued to the petitioner/constable Farman, it was argued by him that the conduct in not cutting his beard despite the specific direction being issued by the superior authority does not come within the purview of misconduct.
Therefore, his counsel argued, no charge-sheet should have been issued against him to conduct the departmental inquiry. To this, the Court, at the outset, observed thus:
"a member of a disciplined force must strictly follow the executive orders or circulars or instructions issued by the department or by the higher authority of the department as those executive orders etc. are as good as service condition."
Further, finding no infirmity or illegality in the impugned charge-sheet dated issued against Constable Farman, the Court observed thus:
"Therefore, non-cutting the beard despite making the petitioner aware by the In-charge Station House Officer of police station Khandasa when the petitioner was posted as constable to the effect that the police personnel may not have beard as it is a violation of direction/circular being issued by the higher officials is not only wrong behaviour but the same is misdemeanor, misdeed and delinquency of the petitioner."
Importantly, emphasizing that Article 25 of the Constitution of India does not confer absolute right in this regard, the Court opined that that having a beard by a member of disciplined force may not be protected under Article 25 of the Constitution of India.
Importantly, referring to Mohammed Zubair Corporal No. 781467-G vs. Union of India and others [reported in (2017) 2 SCC 115], the Court observed that before the Apex Court, the litigant couldn't establish as to whether there is any specific mandate in Islam that prohibits the cutting of hairs or shaving the facial hairs.
The Court also noted that no substantial material was placed before the Apex Court to convince that police personnel professing Islam may not cut his beard or hair.
Resultantly, opining that the allegation levelled in the charge-sheet, prima facie, constitute misconduct subject to the specific findings of the Inquiry Officer on that, the Court dismissed the writ petition being misconceived.
Case title - P.N.O.052150337 Mohd.Farman Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy. Home & Ors.
Read Order