Heard Sri S. K. Mandal, learned counsel for the petitioner and standing counsel for respondents.

2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 29-09-1994, passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Nainital by which an adverse entry was made in the character roll of the peti tioner and further integrity certificate has been stopped.

3. Briefly stated, the petitioner was head Moharir at the relevant time at P. S. Haldwani. In pursuance of the oc currence taken place on 12/13 Decem ber, 1993 regarding illegal selling of rrees, FIR was lodged as case crime no. 112/fd/ 93-94. The petitioner thereaf ter, was suspended on the ground of negligence in duty vide order dated 30-12-1993. The Senior Superintendent of Police, issued notice as to why adverse entry may not be made into his char acter roll. Petitioner has filed his writ ten reply. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Nainital after full fledged inquiry came to the conclusion that there ex isted no evidence against the petitioner and on the basis of adverse entry in the character roll, further increment was stopped. Petitioner against the said punishment preferred an appeal before DIG, Kumaon Range.

4. However, on 25-01-1996 sus pension order was revoked. According to the submission of the petitioner ap peal filed by the petitioner was heard exparte. According to him even during the inquiry proceeding, he was not af forded any opportunity for cross exami nation of the witnesses and the state ments were not recorded in his pres ence. Even the copy of the enquiry re port was not supplied to the petitioner.

5. A perusal of the record shows that vide order dated 14-07-1994 peti tioner was given a show cause notice on 12-08-1994. The petitioner has re plied and ultimately on 29-09-1994, the order was passed awarding the pun ishment against the petitioner. The rel evant punishment order is as under:

Hindi

6. A perusal of the record shows that during the proceedings of the in quiry petitioner was not present and as such, the punishment awarded to the petitioner is wholly exparte and even from the order passed by the punishing authority it is fully established that he has been punished on the ground of suspicion alone.

7. Counter affidavit has been filed by the standing counsel. In para 9 of the counter affidavit it has been men tioned that it will be clear from the de partmental enquiry that there was suf ficient evidence against the petitioner regarding involvement in the aforesaid incident.

8. The sole grievance of the peti tioner is that he has not been afforded any material with regard to the depart mental inquiry even the statement of driver Gajendra Singh has not been re corded in the presence of the petitioner.

9. Rule 5 of U. P. Police Officer Sub ordinate Rank (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1991 provides the procedure for awarding the punishment.

10. Sub Rule (1) of Rule 14 is at tracted in case of major penalty whereas Sub Rule (2) of Rule 14 is at tracted in case of minor penalty. In the present case, petitioner has been awarded minor penalty i. e. withholding the increment as well as censure entry.

11. Sub Rule (2) of Rule 14 is quoted as under:

"notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-Rule (1) punishments in cases referred to in Sub Rule (2) of Rule 5 may be imposed after inform ing the police officer in writing of the action proposed to be taken against him and of the imputations of act or omission on which it is proposed to be taken and giving him reasonable opportunity of making such repre sentation as he may wish to make against the proposal. "

12. The aforesaid rule applies in case of minor punishment as contained in Clause B of Rule 4 to the following effect.

"minor Penalties: (i) Withholding of promotion

(ii) Fine not exceeding one months pay.

(Hi) Withholding of increment includ ing stoppage at an efficiency bar.

(iv) Censure"

13. The grievance of the petitioner is that only on

Click Here to Read the rest of this document