The Allahabad High Court has upheld the dismissal of a police inspector who was serving a life sentence in connection with a 1992 fake encounter case, thereby staying his reinstatement in service.
The order was passed by a Division Bench comprising Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Siddharth Nandan, which set aside the Single Bench judgment passed in favour of Dhirendra Singh Yadav, wherein the departmental dismissal order had been quashed and relief was granted to the inspector.
The Court held that the department had duly assessed the conduct leading to conviction, the gravity of the offence, public interest, and the impact on the image of the police force; therefore, the Single Bench’s conclusion, based merely on earlier judgments, was not legally tenable.
The Court emphasised that –
“The accused persons, who are defenders of law, have acted as criminals and murderers in killing an innocent person in a fake encounter. It was a setback to the fight of the nation against terrorism. It has also caused serious dent to the image of the police department. The trial court has further observed that police officers, who carry out fake encounters, defeat the legitimate claim of those, who are involved in actual fight against terrorism and are genuinely entitled to promotions and recognitions.”
According to the record, in 1992, Inspector Yadav, then posted in Bijnor, was accused of abducting Jaswinder Singh alias Jassa, a resident of Amritsar, from outside Rakabganj Gurdwara in Delhi, taking him to Kashiwala village, killing him in a fake encounter, and lodging a false FIR by projecting him as an unidentified terrorist. After a CBI investigation and a prolonged trial, the Special CBI Court in 2012 convicted the petitioner of serious offences including conspiracy, abduction, murder and destruction of evidence, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The High Court upheld this conviction in 2020. On the basis of this conviction, the police department dismissed him from service in 2015, but the Single Bench had held that the department had not independently evaluated his conduct.
Rejecting this reasoning, the Division Bench observed that –
“Such an act, done in guise of his official position as a police officer (part of disciplined force), had caused a serious dent to the image of the police department.”
Thus, the department had clearly assessed the nature of the incident, the brutality of the offence, the abuse of authority, and aspects relating to moral turpitude; therefore, the dismissal was entirely justified.
The Court made it clear that reinstating a police officer involved in such a grave offence can neither be legally justified nor be consistent with public confidence.
In conclusion, the Court allowed the State Government’s special appeal, set aside the Single Bench order dated 27 February 2025 and dismissed the inspector’s reinstatement plea.
Case: State Of Up And 4 Others vs Dhirendra Singh Yadav, Police Inspector
