SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(All) 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, DONADI RAMESH, JJ.
Sanjeev Kumar Tomar - Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and 4 Others - Respondents
WRIT-A NO.13303 OF 2021.
Decided On : 05-03-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:Vinod Kumar Mishra, S.P.S. Chauhan, Sr. Advocate
For the Respondent: C.S.C.

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.

Headnote:(A) U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rule, 1991 - Rule 4(1)(b)(iv) - Disciplinary proceedings - The petitioner challenged the punishment of censure imposed for negligence in investigation duties, claiming procedural irregularities and lack of evidence - The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition, affirming the disciplinary authority's findings - The petitioner failed to demonstrate negligence or procedural infirmities in the punishment process. (Paras 3, 12, 19)

(B) Natural Justice - Requirement of recording reasons - The court emphasized that quasi-judicial authorities must provide reasons for adverse decisions, as per the principles of natural justice. (Para 15)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Sub-Inspector with 25 years of service, was penalized for failing to coordinate an investigation into a murder case, which he contested as unsubstantiated and procedurally flawed.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the disciplinary authority had adequately considered the evidence and grounds raised in the appeal, leading to a justified dismissal of the claim petition.

Issues: The main issues included whether the punishment was justified based on the alleged negligence and whether proper procedures were followed in the disciplinary process.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the disciplinary authority's findings were supported by evidence of negligence and that the procedural requirements were met, thus upholding the punishment.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Donadi Ramesh, J.

Heard Sri. Sudhanshu Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Sri. S.P.S. Chauhan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, who is also present and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 9.8.2021 passed by State Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh in Claim Petition No. 925/2021.

3. The petitioner filed the Claim Petition No. 925/2021 before the State Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh challenging the punishment order dated 23.10.2020 passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, District Agra. By the said order, punishment of censure/adverse entry, has been provided to the petitioner under the provisions of Rule 4 (1) (b) (iv) of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rule, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the Rule, 1991). Against the said order, petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent no.4 i.e. Inspector General of Police, Agra Range Agra, District Agra under Rule 20 of the Rule, 1991. the same was also dismissed vide order dated 19.12.2020. Against the same, he preferred a revision before respondent no.3, which was also dismissed vide order dated 22.04.2021. Left with no option, the said orders were assailed before the State Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.

5. The petitioner was appointed as Sub-Inspector in the year 1995 under the Dying-in-Harness Rules in the U.P. Police Department, Uttar Pradesh. After completing necessary training, the petitioner was posted as Sub-Inspector in the U.P. Police Department and thereafter, he was promoted on the post of Inspector in the year 2015. The petitioner has completed 25 years of service in the U.P. Police Department. The petitioner was discharging his duties with utmost satisfaction of the higher authorities but surprisingly an order has been issued by the respondents on 23.10.2020 awarding minor punishment i.e. Censure/Adverse Entry as per the provisions of the Rule, 1991.

6. The said punishment was imposed against the petitioner on the ground of negligence, when he was posted at Inspector at Police Station Achhnera, District Agra. The case crime no. 247/2019, under Section 364 IPC has been registered by Gyan Singh against the accused Yogesh and Rakesh at Police Station Achhnera and the petitioner had not coordinated with the counterpart posted at Police Station Tundla, District Firozabad in respect of the investigation of the abovesaid case crime number, in spite of repeated instruction by S.S.P. Agra and Circle Officer, Agra, the petitioner.

7. The petitioner was posted at Police Station Achhnera w.e.f. 5.10.2019 to 10.02.2020. The investigation of Case Crime No. 247/2019, under Section 302/201 IPC was conducted by the predecessor of the petitioner, i.e. the then Incharge Inspector Shri. Ajay Kaushal and the list of pending investigation, which was provided to the petitioner in which the pendency of investigation of the Case Crime No. 247/2019 was not mentioned. The earlier Incharge Inspector has sent a report to the higher authorities for transfer of the investigation of Case Crime No. 247/2019 to Police Station Tundla, District Firozabad as after the recovery of dead body of Devendra, another F.I.R. has been registered as Case Crime No.224/2019, under Section 302/201 IPC at Police Station Tundla, District Firozabad. The Circle Officer Achhnera, District Agra also submitted his report on 28.8.2019 and recommended to transfer the investigation of Case Crime No. 247/2019 to Police Station Tundla, District Firozabad along with Case Crime No. 224/2019. Based on the said report, Inspector General of Police, Agra Range Agra, vide his order dated 17.9.2019 directed for investigation of the aforesaid case from District Firozabad. As there was no S.R. File available in the office of Circle Officer Achhnera as a result since October, 2019, no letter or instruction was given by the Circle Officer to the petitioner

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top