E-Paper
Betray your beloved & get sacked!
HUZBAR UDDINKHAN aspired for a career in UP Police, and was blessed too in 1984 with an opening as a police sub-inspector. Well, as it happens usually to an employed, earning and eligible bachelor, marriage ushered in a life-partner also in his life, followed by two children. As for his official duties, his track record had been unblemished.
HUZBAR UDDINKHAN aspired for a career in UP Police, and was blessed too in 1984 with an opening as a police sub-inspector. Well, as it happens usually to an employed, earning and eligible bachelor, marriage ushered in a life-partner also in his life, followed by two children. As for his official duties, his track record had been unblemished.
But destiny for him took a wayward curve in 1999. He was then posted in Rampur, where an unmarried woman, Rana Rais revealed a serious grouse against him. And this she conveyed in writing to the Inspector General of Police (IGP), Bareilly Zone. Huzbar Uddin, she alleged, had a love affair with her in 1991 and also promised to marry her. But, much to her chagrin, he had backtracked from his solemn promise. Her complaint set the ball rolling for a departmental inquiry against him. Rana Rais testified to her allegations against Huzbar, and to add credence to what she had said, she also placed some letters and pictures before the inquiring officer.
Eventually came the finding that Huzbar had violated Rule 28 of the UP Government Servants Conduct Rules. He was sacked.
Rule 28 of the UP Government Servants Conduct Rules lays down that every government servant shall at all times maintain “absolute integrity” and “devotion to duty”, besides conducting himself in accordance with the specific or implied order of the government, regulating “behaviour and conduct”. Was Huzbar Uddin really guilty of breaching Rule 28? So much so that he could be slapped with the severest punishment of being thrown out of police service after nearly 17 years of spotless official performance? This precisely was the legal question he raised in a writ petition at the Allahabad High Court. On the facts of the case, he pleaded, his dismissal from service had no legs to stand on. The case was heard at length, and in a long and reasoned judgment, backed up with case law and authorities, Justice Shisir Kumar summed up the crux of the case as follows:
—During the time Huzbar Uddin was having the alleged friendship with Rana Rais, she was well aware that he was a married person with 2 children..
—The only charge against him was he had not fulfilled the promise he made in 1991 to marry her..
—It was only after eight years of the said love affair and marriage promise that she had woken up and made a complaint to the IGP, Bareilly Zone, in 1999 against Huzbar.
—There was nothing to prove that on the basis of the alleged promise to marry Rana Rais, he had been having illicit relationship with her..
—The complaint of Rana Rais did not relate to Huzbar Uddinn’s “performance in service” as a police sub-inspector.
—At the top of it all, there was nothing to show that he had infringed discipline in service, or had committed an offence relating to “the performance of his service”, or had “misused his position as a sub-inspector”, orr had violated service rules during his official duty, or had not maintained “proper integrity”.
So, Justice Shishir Kumar concluded, the allegations made against Huzbar Uddin did not constitute ‘misconduct’ under Rule 28 of UP Government Servants Conduct Rules so as to justify his dismissal from police service (2006 (6), ADJ 249).
Besides, said the judge, Huzbar Uddin was not given a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine Rana Rais to defend himself during the departmental inquiry. This had led to an ex parte punitive order against him, much in violation of the principles of natural justice.
At the end, Huzbar Uddin won back his lost job. He be reinstated in service, directed the judge. But as he had not worked since his dismissal from service in December 2001, he be paid only 75 per cent of his back wages, the judge added.
