Sangram Yadav Vs State Of U P And 3 Others: Allahabad High Court Stated That Suspicion Cannot Take The Position Of Proof Even In A Domestic Setup

DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
10/03/2022

BENCH:
JUJSTICE MR. SIDDHARTHA VARMA

PARTIES:
PETITIONER: SANGRAM YADAV
RESPONDENT: STATE OF U. P & 3 ORS.

SUBJECT

Even in a personal investigation, the Allahabad High Court has stated that the state must be able to stand on its own two feet depending on its own facts, and that presumption cannot be permitted to take the role of evidence.

OVERVIEW

1. In July 2014, the appellant was suspended for the claimed event of the case, and an initial investigation was conducted by a former police officer, who concluded a prima facie case over him.
2. In June 2017, the investigation was assigned to the Additional Superintendent of Police, Rural, Jaunpur, based on initial findings.
3. In August 2017, a charge sheet was produced and delivered to the appellant.
4. The Investigation Inspector issued a report in April 2018 declaring the appellant guilty of the allegations brought against him and proposing a significant penalty of expulsion under Rule 4(1) of the UP Police Officers consisting of the subordinate ranks, 1991.
5. In October 2018, the petitioner's claim was dismissed, and in January 2019, he submitted a modification, which was also eliminated. The appellant was enraged and submitted the current writ petition.

LEGAL PROVISION

Rule 4(1) of the UP Police Officers consisting of the subordinate ranks, 1991.

ISSUE

Whether prosecution could allow anyone to suspect the proof in a domestic enquiry?

JUDGEMENT

1. The appellant claimed that the investigation was a farce because it took place in Jaunpur and the appellant was stationed in Varanasi, wherein he was unable to obtain permission to join the investigation.
2. It was also reported that the Investigating Officer had not interviewed any eyewitnesses to the incident. The Court noted that, notwithstanding the fact that the appellant had not responded to the accusations and had failed to attend on the days set for the investigation, it was the Investigation Officer's abiding duty to determine whether the allegations were substantiated on the basis of the information presented.
3. The court also stated that there was simply a medical report saying there was a presumption based on the odour of liquor emerging from the appellant, but no blood or urine sample that might have proven that the appellant had ingested alcohol to the point of being inebriated.
4. In light of the arguments advanced and the findings of the case, the Court annulled and set aside the contested suspension decree, stating that it could not be upheld in the sight of the law.

CONCLUSION

The bench consisting of Justice Sddhartha Varma noted that suspension decree or order will be set aside based on the fact that an Uttar Pradesh police officer had reportedly misbehaved with a private chef while he was intoxicated.

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement