Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, MANJIVE SHUKLA, JJ.
Rajesh Pal Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. And 5 Others – Respondent
Writ A No.12751 of 2023
Decided on : 27-04-2024
DISCIPLINARY ACTION - POLICE CONDUCT - U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991, Rule 14(2) - The court discussed the procedure for imposing minor penalties on police officers as outlined in Rule 14(2) of the Rules of 1991, emphasizing the necessity of issuing a show cause notice and considering the officer's reply. The court found that the disciplinary authority followed the required procedure, leading to the conclusion that the punishment of censure was justified and legally sound.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a police officer, challenged a censure punishment imposed by the Superintendent of Police for misconduct related to a rape case. The petitioner was accused of failing to assist a rape victim and misbehaving with her husband. After a preliminary inquiry found him prima facie guilty, a show cause notice was issued, and the petitioner was given an opportunity to respond before the punishment was imposed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the disciplinary authority had followed the proper procedure as per Rule 14(2) of the Rules of 1991, including issuing a show cause notice and considering the petitioner's reply. The court upheld the findings of the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's claim for relief.
Issues: Whether the disciplinary authority followed the proper procedure in imposing the punishment and whether the punishment was justified based on the evidence of misconduct.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that the power of judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited to evaluating the decision-making process rather than the merits of the decision itself. It confirmed that the disciplinary authority's adherence to procedural requirements was sufficient to uphold the punishment.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, affirming the orders of the disciplinary authority and the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal.
JUDGMENT :
Hon'ble Manjive Shukla, J.
1. Heard Sri Vikram Bahadur Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Dileep Kumar Kesarwani, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents.
2. Petitioner through this writ petition has challenged the order dated 19.10.2022 passed by the learned U.P. State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow in Claim Petition No.907 of 2022 and the order dated 14.7.2023 passed in Review Petition No.104 of 2022. Petitioner through this writ petition has also challenged the punishment order dated 6.1.2021 (wrongly transcribed as 6.1.2020), appellate order dated 13.12.2021 and revisional order dated 12.7.2022.
3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the Superintendent of Police, Mainpuri issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 21.11.2020 whereby petitioner was required to submit his reply within 15 days in respect of charge against him that in the year 2019 while he was posted as Station House Officer at Police Station Bichhwan, on 05/06.07.2019 in the night one Mr. Raju along with his wife was passing through Bichhwan Road on motorbike, unknown miscreants stopped the motorbike and showing the weapon took away his wife and raped her but when Sri Raju informed to Police Station Bichhwan on UP-112, petitioner and few other police personnel misbehaved with him and did not extend him any help thereafter, Mr. Raju reported the aforesaid incident in Police Station Kurawali and there the case was registered as Case Crime No.257 of 2019 under Section 364/376D/392 IPC. The conduct of the petitioner tarnished the image of disciplined police force and reflects the negligence and indiscipline therefore, petitioner through show cause notice was required to submit reply, as to why censure entry may not be given to him. Prior to issuance of show cause notice dated 21.11.2020, preliminary inquiry was also conducted in the matter in which petitioner was prima facie found guilty of the aforesaid charge. Petitioner along with show cause notice dated 21.11.2020 was also served a copy of the preliminary inquiry report. Petitioner submitted his reply to the aforesaid show cause notice on 29.11.2020.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Mainpuri considered the reply submitted by the petitioner and thereafter passed the punishment order on 6.1.2021 (wrongly transcribed as 6.1.2020) whereby minor penalty of censure has been inflicted upon the petitioner. Petitioner filed appeal under Rule 20 of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1991') and the said appeal was rejected by the Inspector General of Police, Agra Zone, Agra vide order dated 18.12.2021. Thereafter, petitioner filed a revision under Rule 23 of the Rules of 1991 which too was rejected by the Additional Director General of Police, Agra Zone, Agra vide order dated 12.7.2022.
5. Petitioner challenged the punishment order dated 6.1.2021 (wrongly transcribed as 6.1.2020), appellate order dated 18.12.2021 and revisional order dated 12.7.2022 by filing Claim Petition No.907 of 2022 before the learned U.P. State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow wherein petitioner took ground that the Disciplinary Authority before passing the punishment order dated 6.1.2021 (wrongly transcribed as 6.1.2020) did not hold any inquiry and further his reply against the show cause notice has not been considered in the punishment order. The State respondents filed their written statement in the claim petition. The learned Tribunal after hearing the matter passed order on 19.10.2022 whereby claim petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. Petitioner preferred a Review Petition No.104 of 2022 for review of order dated 19.10.2022 but the said review petition has also been rejected vide order dated 14.7.2023.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the Disciplinary Authority i.e. Superintendent of Police, Mainpuri prior to passing of punishm
The court established that adherence to procedural requirements in disciplinary actions, as outlined in the relevant rules, is essential for the validity of imposed penalties against police officers.
Disciplinary proceedings must respect natural justice principles, including the right to a personal hearing and proper consideration of the defense, failing which decisions are liable to be quashed.
Disciplinary authorities must provide reasoned decisions in accordance with natural justice, but the imposition of minor punishment for negligence was upheld due to sufficient evidence.
Disciplinary proceedings require clear evidence of misconduct, and courts will not interfere unless strict procedural contraventions are present.
Disciplinary authorities must issue reasoned orders and apply due process to ensure adherence to the principles of natural justice, safeguarding employees against arbitrary judgments.
Punishment – Superintendent of Police has jurisdiction to award minor penalty of censure to a Sub-Inspector of Police.
Charge memo in disciplinary proceedings must be approved by the disciplinary authority; lack thereof renders entire proceedings vitiated ab initio, warranting quashing without remand in peculiar circ....
The disciplinary authority must provide reasons for disagreement with the inquiry report, record its own findings on the charges, and provide the government servant with an opportunity to file a writ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
