Member of police force can’t claim protection under Article 25 for having beard in contravention to Department’s Circular: Allahabad HC

Read Order: Mohd. Farman vs. State of UP

LE Correspondent

Prayagraj, August 24, 2021: The Allahabad High Court has ruled that having a beard by a member of a disciplined force such as the police may not be protected under Article 25 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion, but does not confer absolute right in this regard. 

A Single Bench of Justice Rajeev Singh Chauhan observed that non-cutting the beard despite making the petitioner aware when he was posted as constable to the effect that the police personnel may not have beard as it is a violation of direction/circular being issued by higher officials, is not only a wrong behaviour but the same is misdemeanor, misdeed and delinquency of the petitioner. 

Justice Chauhan further observed that executive intimation/order has been issued to maintain the discipline in the force directing to keep the appearance and uniform befitting for the members of disciplined force. 

The observation came pursuant to a petition challenging the suspension order passed by Deputy Inspector General of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police, Ayodhya (Faizabad) in contemplation of departmental inquiry for the reason of the petitioner maintaining his beard despite the specific direction being issued by the superior authority to shave his beard.

It was pleaded that the Deputy Inspector General of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police had rejected the application of the petitioner seeking permission to maintain his beard in accordance with tenets of Muslim religion.  

The counsel for petitioner while assailing the charge-sheet, has submitted that the conduct of the petitioner in not cutting his beard despite the specific direction being issued by the superior authority does not come within the purview of misconduct, and therefore, no charge-sheet should have been issued against the petitioner to conduct the departmental inquiry.

The High Court opined that if the charge-sheet is issued against any employee who is under suspension, then such suspension order may not be interfered with at least for the period of three months till the departmental inquiry concludes. 

At the same time, if the departmental inquiry does not conclude subject to the proper cooperation of the petitioner with the inquiry proceedings within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the defence reply to the charge-sheet, then suspension order shall be kept in abeyance and the petitioner shall be entitled for consequential relief, added the Court. 

Justice Chauhan went on to reiterate that a member of a disciplined force must strictly follow the executive orders or circulars or instructions issued by the department, as police force has to be a disciplined force and being a law enforcing agency, it is necessary that such force must have secular image which strengthens the countenance of national integration. 

Therefore, the High Court concluded that there is no infirmity or illegality in the charge-sheet issued against the petitioner by the Senior Superintendent of Police and directed the Inquiry Officer to conduct and conclude the inquiry against the petitioner in a lawful manner.