JUDGMENT

Heard Shri Ramesh Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Aakash Sinha, learned State Counsel representing the respondent nos. 1, 3 and 4.

2. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, Sunil Kumar, assailing (i) the judgment and order dated 28.09.2018 passed by the State Public Services Tribunal, Indira Bhawan, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal") in Claim Petition No. 935 of 2017, (ii) judgment and order dated 15.11.2019 passed in Review Petition No. 67 of 2019. Apparently, the claim petition No. 935 of 2017 has been preferred by the writ petitioner against (a) the order of punishment/censure dated 14.12.2016 and (b) the appellate order dated 21.04.2017.

3. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the record available before this Court in the instant writ petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Constable in Civil Police in the year 1997. He was promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector in the year 2013. When he was posted in Police Station Patranga, District Faizabad on 11.06.2016 the Station House Officer, Police Station Patranga, District Faizabad, at about 12:00 noon informed the petitioner orally that there was apprehension of certain incident of cow slaughter in village Siwan near the house of Juber Ahmad. Allegedly, the petitioner did not visit the aforesaid place, however, he submitted his report to the effect that no cattle could be recovered. After two and half hours, a herd of unclaimed cattle was recovered from the aforesaid place. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and apparent dereliction in duty, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Faizabad ordered a preliminary enquiry and the Circle Officer, Bikapur, District Faizabad was appointed as enquiry officer.

4. The Enquiry Officer, after due enquiry, arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner and three others were prima facie guilty and accordingly submitted its report dated 01.08.2016 to the disciplinary authority i.e. Superintendent of Police, Faizabad. On receipt of the enquiry report dated 01.08.2016, the Superintendent of Police, Faizabad issued a show cause notice dated 09.09.2016 to the petitioner, requiring him to explain as to why a censure entry for the year 2016 may not be recorded in his character roll in view of his proven guilt. A copy of the enquiry report was also annexed with the said show cause notice. Having received the aforesaid show cause notice dated 09.09.2016, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 03.11.2016, denying the delinquency being attributed to him. The Superintendent of Police, Faizabad, after considering the explanation of the petitioner to the show cause notice, arrived at a conclusion that the explanation offered by the petitioner was not satisfactory and ordered to record a censure entry in his character roll by means of punishment order dated 14.12.2016.

5. Aggrieved by the order of punishment/censure dated 14.12.2016, the petitioner preferred an appeal as per the rules before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Faizabad Range, Faizabad, who, in turn, rejected it by means of order dated 21.04.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred Claim Petition No. 935 of 2017 before the learned Tribunal, challenging the aforesaid punishment/censure dated 14.12.2016 as well as the appellate order dated 21.04.2017. The learned Tribunal, having regard to the submissions advanced by the parties, noting the proposed penalty mentioned in the show cause notice da