Special Appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition challenging a departmental penalty of censor imposed by the Additional Superintendent of Police. The court upheld the validity of the punishment and the procedure followed.
The appeal was dismissed dismissing the petition for writ.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 21
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 921 of 2018
Appellant :- Ganeshi Lal Gautam Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors Counsel for Appellant :- Prabhakar Awasthi,Rahul Saxena Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Govind Mathur,J. Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
This appeal is preferred to question correctness of the order dated 23.8.2018 passed by the learned single Bench in Writ-A No. 38756 of 2002.
By the judgment impugned the learned single Bench dismissed the petition for writ by arriving at the conclusion that the departmental proceedings were rightly carried out against the appellant petitioner and, as such, no interference therein is warranted.
In appeal the only argument advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant petitioner is that learned single Bench failed to appreciate that the Additional Superintendent of Police, Shamli had no authority to impose penalty of censor upon the appellant petitioner. It is also stated that learned single Bench also failed to appreciate that no opportunity of hearing was given to the appellant petitioner before imposing the penalty of censor.
On going through the order impugned and record of the case we do not find any merit with the arguments advanced. So far as the authority of Additional Superintendent of Police is concerned, suffice to state that as per Rule 7 (4) of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Rank (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1991 an Additional Superintendent of Police is having the power delegated to exercise the powers of Superintendent of Police. The Additional Superintendent of Police imposed a minor punishment that is of censor by invoking authority under Sub-rule 4 of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1991.
The other argument regarding adherence of principle of natural justice too is absolutely ill founded. A perusal of the order dated 6.10.2000 passed by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Shamli discloses that before imposing minor punishment of censor an explanation was sought from the appellant petitioner and only on being dissatisfied with the explanation the penalty was imposed.
It would be appropriate to state that for imposing a minor punishment the only requirement is to adhere the doctrine of audi alteram partem and not the principle of reasonable opportunity which are required to be enforced only while imposing the penalty of removal, dismissal or reduction in rank to a lower grade. In the instant matter the appellant petitioner has been subjected to a minor punishment and, therefore, the need was only to have explanation. In view of whatever stated above, no case is made out that may warrant interference with the order passed by learned single Bench.
Appeal is dismissed, accordingly.
Order Date :- 25.9.2018 Shekhar
[Chandra Dhari Singh, J.] [Govind Mathur, J.]
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Additional Superintendent of Police had the authority to impose a minor punishment of censor.
Whether the principle of natural justice was adhered to before imposing the punishment.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ganeshi Lal Gautam
State Of U.P.
Govind Mathur
Chandra Dhari Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
