The central legal point established in the judgment is that punishment for a police officer must be based on sufficient evidence and must follow the prescribed procedure, as outlined in Rule 5 of U.P. Police Officer Subordinate Rank (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1991.

Heard Sri S.K. Mandai, learned counsel for the petitioner and standing counsel for respondents.

2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner Has prayed for the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 29-09-1994, passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Nainital by which an adverse entry was made, In the character roll of the petitioner and further Integrity certificate has been stopped.

3. Briefly stated, the petitioner was head Moharir at the relevant time at P.S. Haldwani. In pursuance of the occurrence taken place on 12/13 December, 1993 regarding Illegal selling of trees, FIR was lodged as case crime no. 112/FD/ 93-94. The petitioner thereafter, was suspended on the ground of negligence in duty vide order dated 30-12-1993. The Senior Superintendent of Police, issued notice as to why adverse entry may not be made into his character roll. Petitioner has filed his written reply. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Nainital after full fledged inquiry came to the conclusion that there existed no .evidence against the petitioner and on the basis of adverse entry in the character roll, further increment was stopped. Petitioner against the said punishment preferred an appeal before DIG, Kumaon Range.

4. However, on 25-01-1996 suspension order was revoked. According to the submission of the petitioner appeal filed by the petitioner was heard exparte. According to him even during the inquiry proceeding, he was not afforded any opportunity for cross examination of the witnesses and the statements were not recorded in his presence. Even the copy of the enquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner.

5. A perusal of the record shows that vide order dated 14-07-1994 petitioner was given a show cause notice on 12-08-1994. The petitioner has replied and ultimately on 29-09-1994, the order was passed awarding the punishment against the petitioner. The relevant punishment order is as under:

6. A perusal of the record shows that during the proceedings of the inquiry petitioner was not present and as such, the punishment awarded to the petitioner is wholly exparte and even from the order passed by the punishing authority it is fully established that he has been punished on the ground of suspicion alone.

7. Counter affidavit has been filed by the standing counsel. In para 9 of the counter affidavit it has been mentioned that it will be clear from the departmental enquiry that there was sufficient evidence against the petitioner regarding Involvement in the aforesaid incident.

8. The sole grievance of the petitioner is that he has not been afforded any material with regard to the departmental inquiry even the statement of driver Gajendra Singh has not been recorded in the presence of the petitioner.

9. Rule 5 of U.P. Police Officer Subordinate Rank (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1991 provides the procedure for awarding the punishment.

10. Sub Rule (1) of Rule 14 is attracted in case of major penalty whereas Sub Rule (2) of Rule 14 is attracted in case of minor penalty. In the present case, petitioner has been awarded minor penalty i.e. withholding the increment as well as censure entry.

11. Sub Rule (2) of Rule 14 Is quoted as under:

"Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-Rule (1) punishments in cases referred to in Sub Rule (2) of Rule 5 may be imposed after informing the police officer in writing of the action proposed to be taken against, him and of the imputations of act or omission on which it is proposed to be taken and giving him reasonable opportunity of making such representation as he may wish to make against the proposal."

12. The aforesaid rule applies in case of minor punishment as contained in Clause B of Rule 4 to the following effect.

"Minor Penalties :

(i) Withholding of promotion

(ii) Fine not exceeding one month's pay.

(iii) Withholding of increment including stoppage at an efficiency bar. (iv) Censure" ."

13. The grievance of the petitioner is that only on the bas