Allowed

Chandra Kant Pandey v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC23 Jan 2019WRIA/11781/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition wherein the petitioner challenged his censure for alleged negligence in failing to execute earlier arrest orders. The Court held that as the petitioner was posted only after the relevant inaction occurred, the order could not be sustained and quashed three impugned orders.

What did the court decide?

Three impugned orders dated 31 October 2017, 27 December 2017 and 21 March 2018 passed by respondents 4, 3 and 2 respectively are quashed.

Chandra Kant Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11781 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Chandra Kant Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Birendra Kaushik Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vikram Bahadur Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the State respondents.

¶6

This petition has been preferred seeking the following reliefs:

¶7

“ (1) A writ , order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 31-10-2017 passed by Respondent No.4 (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition) order dated 27-12-1017 passed by Respondent No. 3 (Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition) and the order dated 21-03-2018 passed by respondent No. 2 (Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition).

¶8

(2) A writ , order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent not to withhold the promotion of the petitioner on the ground of Censure.”

¶9

In terms of the order impugned a censure entry has come to be recorded against the petitioner. The order awarding censure has been affirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities. The censure entry was fundamentally recorded on an allegation that the petitioner had failed to take adequate steps for the arrest of two named accused who were facing trial.

¶10

Shorn of unnecessary details, it becomes relevant to note that in the pending criminal proceedings non bailable warrants and coercive steps under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. were ordered by the competent Court on 28 September 2012. These orders are stated to have been received in the concerned police station on 30 September

¶11

These warrants remained unexecuted. A G.D. entry of 28 March 2013 has been referred to contend that despite monetary rewards being offered, the named accused could not be apprehended. It is further stated that in the absence of any assets or immovable properties, no proceedings for attachment could also be initiated. It appears that aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the police authorities to arrest the named accused and produce them before the trial Court, Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 20412 of 2016 Shyam Sundar Vs. State came to be instituted in which on 17 September 2016, the High Court entered adverse comments against the inaction and apathy on the part of the police authorities. Consequent to the serious view taken by the High Court, the named accused were ultimately arrested on 24 September 2016. The adverse entry rests upon the formation of an opinion that the petitioner was negligent in discharge of his duties while posted at the concerned police station.

¶12

However, before this Court, it is not disputed that the petitioner was posted at this police station only during the period 24 April 2016 to 13 August 2016. It is therefore exfacie evident that no act of wilful inaction or at least a failure to discharge duties can be attributed to the petitioner in respect of the non bailable warrants and coercive steps directed in 2012 and which remained unexecuted up to 2016. The petitioner was posted at this station only for a period of four months. The order of the High Court pursuant to which the order of the trial Court was ultimately effected came to be passed on 17 September 2016.

¶13

Apart from the facts which are noted above, no specific act or omission is attributed individually or specifically to the petitioner which may be read in order to sustain the censure entry. In view thereof, the Court finds itself unable to sustain the order impugned.

¶14

The writ petition is allowed . The impugned orders dated 31 October 2017, passed by respondent No. 4, 27 December 2017 passed by the respondent No. 3 and 21 March 2018 passed by the respondent No. 2 are hereby quashed.

¶15

Order Date :- 23.1.2019 LA/-

Chandra Kant Pandey v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandra Kant Pandey v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pritam Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ramdayal Dhuriya Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Surendra Kumar Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Yashpal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Dr. Balbeer Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Aslam Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Home