By the Court.—Heard Sri Ramesh Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.

2. The instant writ petition arises out of the judgment and order dated dated 9.3.2017 passed by the Uttar Pradesh Public Services Tribunal (in short referred to as “the Tribunal”) in Claim Petition No. 1662 of 2016 (Masood Asghar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others), whereby the claim petition of the petitioner has been dismissed by the Tribunal affirming the order of punishment dated 20.8.2015 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Barabanki and the appellate order dated 18.1.2016 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Faizabad Range, Faizabad.

3. Submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a Head Constable in Civil Police (Promotional Pay Scale),who was subjected to departmental proceeding under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Police Officers (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1991 (in short “1991 Rules”). In the preliminary inquiry, the petitioner was allegedly found guilty for not not showing respect to public representative i.e.Mr. Rakesh Pratap Singh (MLA) and having spoke to media persons.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that on the report of preliminary inquiry dated 5.6.2014 submitted by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Amethi, a charge-sheet dated 1.10.2014 was served upon the petitioner requiring him to submit his reply. vide letter dated 10.10.2014, the petitioner had requested for providing copies of preliminary inquiry report and the complaint but the same were not provided and in absence of such documents, the petitioner submitted his reply on 31.10.2014 denying the allegations levelled again him.

5. It has also been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, final inquiry was initiated against the petitioner and after concluding the final inquiry, the Additional Superintendent of Police (North), Barabanki vide inquiry report dated 8.7.2015 recommended for punishment of withholding one increment for a period of one year, which is against the law laid down by this Court in the case of Ram Pal Singh v. Director of Agriculture, Uttar Pradesh and others; 2012 (30) LCD 843, in which the learned Single Judge relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of State of Uttaranchal and others v. Kharak Singh; (2008) 8 SCC 236, has held that in regard to question whether an inquiry officer can indicate the proposed punishment in his report, this Court, in a series of decisions has pointed out that it is for the punishing/disciplinary authority to impose appropriate punishment and inquiry officer has no role in awarding punishment. It is well-settled law that it is for the punishing authority to propose punishment and not for the inquiring authority.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has again submitted that on the basis of the aforesaid illegal inquiry report dated 8.7.2015, the Superintendent of Police, Barabanki issued a show-cause notice dated 24.7.2015 to the petitioner requiring him to submit explanation. The petitioner had submitted his reply on 12.8.2015 denying the allegations levelled against him but without considering his reply, the Superintendent of Police, Barabanki has passed an order of punishment dated 20.8.2015 withholding one increment for a period of one year. Being aggrieved by the order dated 20.8.2015, the petitioner moved an appeal but the same has also been dismissed vide order dated 18.1.2016 by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Faizabad Range, Faizabad without considering the grounds taken by the petitioner.

7. It has further been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in respect of the same incident, the Superintendent of Police, Amethi passed minor punishment vide order dated 2.9.2014 imposing censure entry against the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitione