Wearing a beard by a member of disciplined violence may not be protected under Article 25: Allahabad HC

0

the Allahabad High Court recently observed that a police officer’s failure to cut a beard despite an instruction / circular issued by senior officials that police personnel should not wear a beard is not only wrong conduct, but also misdemeanor, misdemeanor and crime is such an official .

The bank of Judge Rajesh Singh Chauhan also believed that the police must be a disciplined force and Since it is a law enforcement agency, such violence must have a secular image that strengthens the face of national integration

Case coming soon

The court heard a plea from a Constable with the UP Police, Mohd. Farman who attacked a 2020 circular from the Director General of Police UP issued certain guidelines regarding the wearing of an appropriate uniform and appearance for a member of a disciplined force.

In essence, Constable Farman had been suspended pending a departmental investigation on the fact that Although he is a member of a disciplined troop, he retains his beard and in spite of the special instructions of the superiors to shave the beard, he did not obey this instruction.

He also appealed against his suspension order and the order of the Deputy Inspector General of Police / Senior Superintendent of Police, Ayodhya (Faizabad), denying his application for a beard grooming permit according to the principles of the Muslim religion.

Court order

Initially, the Court found that it was the domain of the competent authorities to issue guidelines for the wearing of the appropriate uniform and the maintenance of appearance in a manner necessary for the members of the disciplined force.

No interference should be made, as maintaining and wearing an appropriate uniform and maintaining physical appearance is one of the first and most important requirements for members of a disciplined force“Added the court.

Against this background, the court found no frailty or illegality in the DGP circular.

The court also found that his application had been rejected within the meaning of the DGP circular, so the court found no infirmity or illegality in the aforementioned order (rejection of his application for beard grooming in accordance with the principles of the Muslim religion). .

With regard to the investigations initiated against him, the court has stated that the investigating officer should carry out and conclude the investigations of the department with speed, preferably within three months, strictly in accordance with the law and the principles of natural justice.

Well, in relation to the indictment / indictment to the petitioner / Constable Farman, it has been argued by him that the conduct was not to trim his beard despite the express instruction of the superior authority does not fall within the scope of misconduct.

Therefore, his attorney argued, a charge slip should not have been issued against him in order to conduct the ministry’s investigation. In this regard, the Court stated at the outset as follows:

a member of a disciplined force must strictly obey any executive order or circular or instruction issued by the department or higher authority of the department, as those executive orders, etc., are as good as service conditions.

In addition, the court found no frailty or illegality in the disputed indictment sheet issued against Constable Farman and found that:

Therefore, the beard is not trimmed, although the petitioner has been made aware by the house officer of the relevant Khandasa Police Station that the petitioner has been posted as a constable that the police personnel may not have a beard as this is a violation of the instruction / surrender of one Circular by the senior officials is not only a wrongdoing but also an offense, an offense and a delinquency on the part of the petitioner. ”

It is important that the Court stresses that Article 25 of the Constitution of India does not give absolute right in this regard that wearing a beard by a member with disciplined violence is not protected under Article 25 of the Constitution of India.

Important with reference to Mohammed Zubair Corporal No. 781467-G vs. Union of India and others [reported in (2017) 2 SCC 115], the court found that the litigant before the Apex Court was unable to determine whether there is a specific mandate in Islam prohibiting cutting hair or shaving facial hair.

The court also found that no material material was presented to the Apex court to convince them that professing Islamic police officers should not cut his beard or hair.

In the opinion that the allegation made in the indictment was prima facie misconduct, subject to the investigator’s specific findings in this regard, the court rejected the written application as misunderstood.

Case Title – PNO052150337 Mohd.Farman defendant: – State of UPThru.Prin.Secy. Home & Ors.

Click here to download the order

Read order


Source link

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.