The State of U.P. and Others vs Babu Ram Upadhya.

INTRODUCTION

In the case of The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others against Babu Ram Upadhya, dismissal of a sub-inspector from the police service has followed the allegation of misappropriation during the conduct of a search. According to the respondent, he has misappropriated 250 rupees from the purse containing currency notes belonging to Tika Ram, whereas Tika Ram has stated that initially 650 rupees were there, but post search only 400 were left. An initiation of departmental proceedings under Section 7 of the Police Act followed, which has resulted in the dismissal of the respondent from service by the Deputy Inspector General of Police. He, however, moved before the High Court against the order of dismissal on various grounds, such as contravention of requirements that are mandatory as laid down under paragraph 486 of UP Police Regulations in conducting the inquiry. The High Court set aside the order of dismissal, which has prompted the government to appeal against the High Court order before the Supreme Court on the following important issues: whether the disciplinary action was procedurally compliant and whether the alleged misappropriation constituted an offence under Section 405 IPC cognisable.

FACTS 

1.    Babu Ram Upadhya, the respondent, was a sub-inspector of police.
2.    A complaint was filed against him alleging that he had misappropriated ₹250 from a bundle of currency notes during a search of one Tika Ram. Tika Ram claimed that when the respondent searched him, he found a bundle containing currency notes worth ₹650, but when he counted them at his house, they were only worth ₹400.
3. Departmental proceedings were initiated against the respondent under Section 7 of the Police Act, and he was dismissed from service by the Deputy Inspector General of Police.
4. The respondent challenged the dismissal in the High Court, arguing that the inquiry violated paragraph 486 of the U.P. Police Regulations.
5. The High Court quashed the dismissal order, finding that the provisions of paragraph 486 of the Police Regulations had not been observed.
6. The state government appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUES

1. Was the dismissal of Babu Ram Upadhya valid despite the inquiry violating Rule I of Paragraph 486 of the U.P. Police Regulations?
2. Whether the non-compliance with these regulations rendered the dismissal order illegal?
3. Whether the alleged act of misappropriation by the respondent constituted a cognisable offence under Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code?

JUDGEMENT

The court, in the matter of The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Babu Ram Upadhya, found that the termination of the respondent was illegal on the basis of an investigation conducted in violation of Rule I of Paragraph 486 of the U.P. Police Regulations. The Court held that the allegations in the complaint constituted a prima facie case in terms of a cognisable offence under Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code, which defines “criminal breach of trust”. The inquiry results construed that the respondent, being a police officer, was having the currency notes while on official duty, which would be defined as misappropriation of the currency notes as a cognisable offence. The Court rejected the contention that non-compliance with the regulations was mere directory and upheld the qualification that such non-compliance would invalidate the order of dismissal. Hence, the judgement was delivered in the query from the State Government towards the high court verdict of quashing dismissal. Thus, the procedural violations could render such orders legally untenable in departmental enquiries.

REASONING

1. As far as the regulations are concerned, Paragraph 486 of the U.P. Police Regulations was declared mandatory rather than directory. It was stated that in keeping with these regulations, a formal inquiry ought:
   1. to have been held by an officer of a rank specified (Senior Superintendent of Police or above);  
   2. to have complied with procedural safeguards meant to be: these procedural safeguards assure fairness of disciplinary proceedings against police officers.  

2. The inquiry which ultimately led to the dismissal of Babu Ram Upadhya was held by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, which had no locus as per the regulations. Thus, the Court found such noncompliance to be fatal to the order of dismissal. The court laid stress on the idea that mandatory failure rendered the entire proceeding in question without any legal status.

3. The Court looked at whether the alleged misappropriation amount of ₹250 by the respondent (sub-inspector) during a search operation could amount to a cognisable offence. It held:
   1. The money was entrusted to the respondent in the course of his official duty, so if he misappropriated the same, it was a criminal breach of trust under Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code.
   2. The offence came to fall unduly well within the definition in Section 405 of the IPC, which in effect means that the respondent did not return the money received after the inspection. This amounts to dishonest misappropriation.

4. The Court did not grant credence to the State’s contention that it was a non-cognisable offence under Section 403 IPC since the nature of the duty done by the respondent and the entrustment of property was enough to make it one under Section 405 IPC.

CONCLUSION

Judgement is given by the Supreme Court that it upheld the verdict of the High Court that said the order of dismissal was illegal, as the same was violative of Rule I of Paragraph 486 of U.P. Police Regulations. The Court stated itself that the regulation was mandatory and the deviation was procedural, which would go to the root of the legality of disciplinary actions. The plea was rejected that the rules were merely directory, as the procedural safeguards were necessary to secure the objective fairness of departmental enquiries. It also held that the said act of appropriation constituted cognisable offences, as Section 405 IPC deals with criminal trust by the police officer with regard to property in respect of official duty. Thus, the apex court reaffirmed the principle in illegal dismissal by violation of procedure, which may now well attach itself to accountability in public service.

REFERENCES

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1540511

Written by Parth Srivastava, Kamla Nehru Vidhi Sansthan, an intern under Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.

Karan Chhetri

‘Social Media Head’ of Legal Vidhiya.

‘Case Analyst’ ⚖️