IMPORTANT POINT
The appellate authority in disciplinary proceedings has the power to re-appreciate evidence and can affirm or enhance punishments, even if the disciplinary authority's order lacks detailed reasoning.

JUDGMENT :

MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard Sri Ishir Shripat, Advocate holding brief of Ms. Atipriya Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner along with Sri Laxmikant Trigunait and Sri Irfan Ahmad Malik, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner in the connected writ petitions, Sri Sushil Kumar Pal, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, Sri Pramod Kumar Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, Sri Ram Swaroop Umrao, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Girish Chand Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State.

2. Petitioner through this writ petition has assailed the order dated 02.04.2022 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Aligarh whereby punishment of ‘censure’ has been imposed against him. Petitioner through this writ petition has also challenged the order dated 07.07.2022 whereby appeal filed against punishment order dated 2.04.2022 has been rejected and further order dated 13.09.2022 whereby revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

3. This writ petition was earlier heard by a learned Single Judge of this Court and the order dated 1.12.2022 has been passed whereby learned Single Judge expressed his respectful disagreement with the ratio of a judgment and order dated 03.01.2022 rendered by another learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ-A No. 18299 of 2021 (Pradeep Kumar Asthana Vs. State of U.P. and others) and thereby had framed the issue and requested Hon’ble The Chief Justice of this Court to constitute a larger Bench for deciding the said issue.

4. Learned Single Judge vide his order dated 1.12.2022 passed in Writ-A No. 18438 of 2022 had framed the following issue to be decided by the larger Bench:

“Whether the power of the appellate authority under the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 are confined to the powers of the judicial review or the appellate authority can exercise the original powers and take a decision which are in the domain of the disciplinary authority while exercising the appellate powers?”

5. Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 1.12.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge, Hon’ble the Chief Justice of this Court has constituted this Division Bench for deciding the aforesaid issue framed by the learned Single Judge.

6. Brief facts culled out from the writ petition are that the petitioner while posted as Constable in the Traffic Police at District Aligarh in the year 2021 was prima facie found to have committed misconduct therefore, preliminary inquiry was conducted in the matter and thereafter disciplinary authority i.e. the Senior Superintendent of Police, Aligarh issued a show-cause notice under Rule 14(2) of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 1991’) whereby petitioner was required to submit his reply explaining therein as to why minor punishment of ‘censure’ as provided under Rule 4 of the Rules of 1991 may not be imposed against him. Petitioner submitted his reply to the show-cause notice on 04.03.2022 wherein he took various grounds to prove his innocence. Ultimately disciplinary authority i.e. the Senior Superintendent of Police, Aligarh passed the order on 02.04.2022 wherein it has been recorded that the explanation given by the petitioner is not satisfactory and he could not give any such fact in his reply which is worth consideration and thereby minor punishment of ‘censure’ has been imposed against the petitioner.

7. Petitioner challenged the punishment order dated 02.04.2022 by filing appeal under Rule 20 of the Rules of 1991 and he took the ground in appeal that the Disciplinary Authority has not considered his reply to the show-cause notice and the punishment order is absolutely unreasoned and non-speaking. The appellate authority, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Rule 20 of the Rules of 1991 considered the entire evidence and also considered the reply submitted by the petitioner to t