5 April 2022 4:53 PM GMT
The Allahabad High Court has sought the personal presence of the Director-General of Police, Uttar Pradesh to apprise him of the state of affairs of the Uttar Pradesh Police department and the reckless approach of the officers of the department in not complying with the orders the High Court.The Bench of Justice Saral Srivastava has directed the UP DGP, Mukul Goel to remain personally...
The Allahabad High Court has sought the personal presence of the Director-General of Police, Uttar Pradesh to apprise him of the state of affairs of the Uttar Pradesh Police department and the reckless approach of the officers of the department in not complying with the orders the High Court.
The Bench of Justice Saral Srivastava has directed the UP DGP, Mukul Goel to remain personally present before the High Court on April 21, 2022 in connection with a contempt plea moved by one Alok Kumar.
The Background of the case
Essentially, Alok Kumar had moved to the court with the instant contempt plea in 2018 with the allegation that the UP Police Department, in violation of the Court's December 2017 order, failed to consider the claim of applicant/Alok Kumar for compassionate appointment in accordance with rules as applicable prior to U.P. Sub Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Service Rules, 2015 within a period of two months.
It was the further submission of the applicant that though he was entitled to a compassionate appointment, a fact that had been acknowledged by the opposite party, yet, he had not been issued any appointment letter.
In such view of the fact, holding that prima facie a case for contempt was made out, the Court, on March 4, 2022, directed Dr. Rakesh Shanker, Deputy Inspector General of Police (Establishment) U.P. Police Headquarter, Prayagraj to appear in person on April 4, 2022 to show cause as to why charge may not be framed against him for not complying with the order of Writ Court.
Now, on April 4, 2022, the court was informed that the opposite party [Dr. Rakesh Shanker, Deputy Inspector General of Police (Establishment) U.P. Police Headquarter] had retired on March 31, 2021 and no officer had been appointed on the said post by the State government.
In view of this, at the outset, the court observed that the applicant, who had filed a writ petition in the year 2017, had not been able to take the benefit of the Judgment even though more than five years have elapsed.
The Court also expressed its disappointment with the state as it did not care to file an affidavit to inform the Court that the opposite party had retired. The Court said this as it opined that it was not expected from the applicant to keep an eye on every moment of the department and as soon as an officer is retired or transferred, and the incumbent joins, he should rushe to the Court to file impleadment applications.
Further, the Court observed thus in what could be called a stromgly-worded remark:
"Once, the notice has been issued, it is obvious that the opposite party who is State has knowledge about the orders of this Court and it is expected from the officers to comply with the orders of this Court in letter and spirit. In such a pitiable condition, it is unfortunate that a poor litigant who is contesting his right before the Court and after succeeding has failed to get the benefit of judgment due to delaying and unscrupulous tactics adopted by the officers. This results in harassment and waste of valuable time of the litigant in rushing to Court to get the order of the Court executed. The amoral attitude of the authorities in complying with the order of Writ Court also results in wastage of precious time of Court." [emphasis supplied]
Consequently, the Court sought the personal presence of UP DGP before the Court in view of the fact that no officer had been appointed on the post of DIG, Establishment, UP, Prayagraj by the State Goernment and posted the matter for further hearing on April 21, 2022.
Advocates Vijay Gautam, Atipriya Gautam, Azim Ahmad Kazmi, Devesh Mishra, Krishna Ji Shukla appeared for the applicant and Advocate Praveen Kumar Giri appeared for the opposite party.
Case title - Alok Kumar v. Rakesh Shankar [CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 5432 of 2018]
Click Here To Read/Download Order