Prosecution Must Stand On Own Legs, Can't Allow Suspicion To Take Place Of Proof Even In Domestic Enquiry: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has observed that the prosecution must stand on its own legs based on its own evidence and that suspicion can't be allowed to take the place of proof even in a domestic inquiry.

The bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma observed thus as it set aside the dismissal order passed against an Uttar Pradesh police official for allegedly misbehaving with the private cook under the influence of alcohol.

The Court noted that even though the petitioner had not replied to the charges and had not appeared on the dates fixed when the inquiry was undergone, it was the bounden duty of the Enquiry Officer to have seen whether the charges were proved on the basis of the evidence which was led by it.

"There was only a medical report that there was a suspicion on account of the fact that there was a smell coming of alcohol from the petitioner while there was no blood report or urine report of the petitioner which actually would have proved that the petitioner had actually consumed liquor/alcohol to an extent that he was in a state of drunkenness," the Court added as it stressed that no eyewitnesses were examined in the case

The case in brief

The petitioner was suspended in July 2014, for the alleged incident and thereafter, a preliminary inquiry was undergone by a retired police officer, who found a prima facie case against the petitioner.

On the basis of the preliminary report, the enquiry was allotted to the Additional Superintendent of Police, Rural, Jaunpur in June 2017. A charge sheet was prepared and handed over to the petitioner in August 2017.

Enquiry report was submitted in April 2018 by the Enquiry Officer finding the petitioner guilty of the charges levied against him and a major punishment of removal was proposed under Rule 4(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991.

Thereafter, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner for his reply, upon receiving the notice, he submitted his reply in July 2018 and thereafter the punishment order was passed against the petitioner and he was removed from service in August 2018.

The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed in October 2018 and similarly, the revision filed by him was also dismissed on January 2019. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner had filed the instant writ petition.

It was contended by the petitioner is that the enquiry was a sham enquiry inasmuch as the enquiry was being undergone in Jaunpur and the petitioner was posted at Varanasi from where he was unable to get leave to attend the enquiry. It had been further stated that no eye-witness of the incident had been examined by the Enquiry Officer.

In view of this, noting that the impugned order of suspension can't be sustained in the eyes of law, the Court quashed and set aside the same.

Case title - Sangram Yadav v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 115

Click here To Read/Download Order