1. Police officer penalized with censure for negligence in investigation disposal — Challenge against penalty for violation of service rules and principles of natural justice. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 840 ; 2024 Supreme(SC) 841 ; 2024 Supreme(SC) 842 ; 2024 Supreme(SC) 843
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Sub Inspector Sanjay Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No(S).10894 of 2024(Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 12891 of 2022)
Decided on : 27-09-2024
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s) Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv. Mr. Syed Mehdi Imam, AOR Ms. Akriti Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Priyam Kaushik, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Anuvrat Sharma, AOR Ms. Alka Sinha, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s) Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv. Mr. Syed Mehdi Imam, AOR Ms. Akriti Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Priyam Kaushik, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Anuvrat Sharma, AOR Ms. Alka Sinha, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
Punishment – Superintendent of Police has jurisdiction to award minor penalty of censure to a Sub-Inspector of Police.
Headnote:
Service Law – Punishment – Censure entry in Service Book – Superintendent of Police was having jurisdiction to award minor penalty of censure to appellant who was, at relevant point of time, posted as Sub-Inspector of Police – Appellant did not show interest in disposal of investigations which was treated to be a sign of gross negligence, indifference and selfishness while performing duties and was thus highly condemnable – Contention advanced by counsel for appellant that censure entry was directed to be recorded by an Officer who was not competent and that same suffers from vice of non-adherence to rules/principles of nature justice is not tenable – Appeal dismissed. [Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 – Rules 5, 7 and 14] (Paras 19, 20 and 22)
Facts of the case:
Short question requiring consideration is, whether direction to record censure entry in appellant’s service book suffers from vice of non-adherence to principles of natural justice and whether action is de hors Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991.
Findings of Court:
High Court committed no error whatsoever in rejecting writ petition and writ appeal preferred by appellant, assailing censure entry.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Penalty imposed without show-cause notice — Violation of Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 and principles of natural justice. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 )
3. Notice issued by Circle Officer and subsequent reply considered in the report — Competent authority exercised jurisdiction under service rules following due process. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 )
4. Minor penalty of censure is valid when the delinquent officer is provided an opportunity to represent against imputations as required by service rules. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 20 )
6. Does the imposition of a minor penalty like censure require a prior hearing?
Under Rule 14(2) read with Rule 5(2) of the Rules, 1991, minor penalties can be imposed only after informing the officer in writing of the proposed action and imputations and providing a reasonable opportunity to make a representation. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 )
7. Is a notice issued by a subordinate officer sufficient to satisfy the requirement of natural justice for a penalty imposed by a higher authority?
Yes, if the explanation provided in response to such notice is forwarded to and considered by the competent authority before the final order is passed. (Para 17 , 18 , 20 )
8. Who is the competent authority to award a penalty of censure to a Sub-Inspector under the Rules, 1991?
Under Rule 7(2) of the Rules, 1991, the Superintendent of Police is empowered to award minor penalties, including censure, to Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors. (Para 14 , 19 , 20 )
JUDGMENT :
Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
3. The appellant herein, while being posted as Sub-Inspector at Police Station Hanumanganj, District Khushinagar, Uttar Pradesh, was condemned for gross negligence, indifference and selfishness in discharge of duties vide office order dated 16th November, 20211[In short ‘impugned order’.] issued by the Additional Chief Secretary, Home (Police). As a consequence, he was handed down a penalty of censure vide letter dated 7th March, 2022 issued by the Superintendent of Police, District Khushinagar.
4. The relevant part of the impugned order is reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference: -
| “Uttar Pradesh Government Home (Police) Section-1 Number: U.O.-74(23)/6-P-1-21-107/2021 Lucknow: Date: 16 November 2021 Office Order In the video conferencing held by the Hon'ble Chief Minister on dt. 09.09.2021, during the review of disposal of investigations of state's law and order, crimes, and the cases registered till dt. 31.07.2021, in the 12 districts which have disposed of the least number of investigations, 03 sub-inspectors and inspectors have been identified and after receiving their clarifications, the investigating officers' name, designation, current deployment details/report, were made available by Addl. Director General of Police (Crime), U.P., Lucknow vide letter number DG-7-S 2(1)/2021 dated 26.09.2021. 2- According to the clarification provided by the Addl. Director of Police (Crime) U.P., Lucknow, Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Sub- Inspector, ΡΝΟ-982650369, PS Hanumanganj, District Khushinagar didn't show the expected interest in the disposal of investigations. This act is a sign of gross negligence, indifference and selfishness while performing his duty and is highly condemned. S/d illegible (Avnish Kumar Awasthi) Additional Chief Secretary Number and Date as in: Copy: Sent to the following for information and necessary action: - (1) Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow (2) Additional Director Establishment, U.P., Lucknow General of Police, (3) Additional Director General of Police, Police Headquarters, U.P., Lucknow (4) Additional Director General of Police, Gorakhpur Zone, Gorakhpur (5) Superintendent of Police, Dist. Khushinagar provided 03 copies with the intention of handing over 01 copy to Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Sub- Inspector, PNO-982650369, PS Hanumanganj, District Khushinagar and the receipt to be made available to the government and censure to be mentioned in their character record (6) Guard Book. By Order, S/d illegible (Mahendra Prasad Bharti) Joint Secretary” |
5. The appellant preferred a writ petition[Writ-A No. 830 of 2022.] before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad assailing the impugned order and the consequent censure entry made in his service book. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition denying relief to the appellant vide order dated 23rd March, 2022. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred an intra-Court writ appeal[Special Appeal (Defective) No. 150 of 2022.] which came to be dismissed by the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court vide judgment dated 9th May, 2022 which is assailed in the present appeal by special leave.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant, vehemently and fervently contended that no opportunity to show cause was ever afforded to the appellant before imposing the penalty of censure upon him. He urged that the impugned order and the consequent communication issued by the Superintendent of Police, District Khushinagar, are in clear breach of the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 19914[In short ‘Rules, 1991’.] and also suffer from the vice of non- adherence to the principles of natural justice.
7. The learned counsel for the a
