Dismissed

Raj Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC27 Sept 2022/6212/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Tribunal order cum dismissal of a claim petition, upholding a police officer's censure punishment for facilitating an unauthorized meeting with an accused. The Court distinguished precedents involving denied evidence, noting the petitioner failed to avail the opportunity to inspect documents.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; punishment order dated 6.11.2019 and appellate order dated 16.4.2020 affirmed.

Raj Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6212 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Singh

¶4

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shikhar Anand

¶5

Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the State respondents and perused the records available before us on this writ petition.

¶7

By instituting these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 1.11.2021 passed in Claim Petition No.1393 of 2020 (Raj Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P. and others) by U.P. State Public Service Tribnal, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal"), whereby the claim petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the order of punishment for award of censure dated 6.11.2019 and the appellate order dated 16.4.2020 have been afÏrmed. The order dated 7.9.2022 rejecting the review petition by the Tribunal is also under challenge.

¶8

Factual matrix of the matter are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of SubInspector on 4.4.1999 on compassionate grounds after training at Police Training College, Sitapur. He was posted in Gorakhpur, Kushinagar, Special Task Force, Lucknow, Banda, Chitrakoot and thereafter at Government Railway Police Anubhag Allahabad. On 20.11.2016 he was promoted on the post of Inspector and at the time of filing of the writ petition, the petitioner was posted in the grade pay of Rs.4800/- as Inspector In-charge, Medical Cell/I.G.R.S, Police ofÏce, Banda (Class-III post).

¶9

After a preliminary inuqiry the petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 16.5.2019 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Hamirpur which carried the allegations against the petitioner with regard to an incident dated 14.5.2018 when

¶10

the petitioner was discharging his duties as Inspector (Civil Police), Hamirpur and he was given task to command the convoy of an accused Sundar Bhati son of Hukum Sing. The accused was to be produced before the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, as well as before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar from District Hamirpur. The said accused was lodged at District Jail, Baghpat. On 14.5.2018 after receiving the custody of accused Sundar Bhati, the petitioner proceeded for the court of Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court-2/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar but when he reached at Mahalakshmi Filling Station, Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad, without any prior permission and violating the settled rules the petitioner allowed some unknown person to meet accused Sundar Bhati. This meeting was captured in the C.C.T.V Video footage. Gathering the information of this illegal meeting of the accused with unknown persons facilitated by the petitioner the authorities took serious note of the incident.

¶11

Petitioner furnished reply to the show cause and denied all the allegations levelled against him vide letter dated 28.9.2019 and at the same time demanded copy of the preliminary inquiry report and some other documents.

¶12

As per the case of the respondents, they considered the reply received from the petitioner which culminated into passing the minor punishment order of censure entry, in the service records. Being aggrieved by the punishment order of censure dated 6.11.2019, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 10.2.2020 before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Chitrakoot Dham, Range Banda and the same was also rejected vide order dated 16.4.2020 which led him to file Claim Petition No.1393 of 2020 before the Tribunal wherein the order of punishment dated 6.11.2019 alongwith the order passed in Departmental Appeal dated 16.4.2020 were challenged.

¶13

Refuting the case set up by the petitioner, the respondents filed their written statement on 11.11.2020 and in reply to the same a rejoinder

¶14

afÏdavit was filed by the petitioner on 19.11.2020. After exchange of pleadings the learned Tribunal dismissed the petition of the petitioner vide order dated 1.11.2021. The learned Tribunal having considered the case and other materials available before it came to the conclusion that the entire exercise as carried out by the respondents is as per the proper procedure as provided in Uttar Pradesh Police OfÏcers of the Subordinate Ranks (punishment and appeal) Rule 1991 for imposing minor punishment in terms of Rule 16 of the said Rules. Moreover the learned Tribunal justified the reasoning given by the disciplinary and appellate authorities while adjudicating the issues. It is also afÏrmed by the learned Tribunal that the evidence against the petitioner was duly considered and the circumstances in which the alleged incident took place was also examined.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner basically challenged the orders passed by the disciplinary authority, appellate authority as well as by the Tribunal on the ground of non-supply of documents alongwith show cause notice and submitted that the Inquiry OfÏcer has not made inquiry in respect of the video in question. It has been urged that copy of the preliminary inquiry report and other documents were not provided and the reply submitted by the petitioner had not been considered by the disciplinary authority i.e, Superintendent of Police, Hamirpur.

¶16

In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgement dated 19.4.2011 reported in 2011 (5) ADJ 534 Dina Nath Chaube vs. Central Bank of India and others and judgment dated 12.1.2005 reported in 2005(2) UPLBEC 1154, Ram Surat Singh and others vs. Inspector General of Police, Allahabad Zone, Allahabad and others .

¶17

Learned standing counsel on behalf of the respondents on the other hand has justified the orders passed against the petitioner specially judgment dated 1.11.2021 passed by learned Tribunal in Claim Petition No.1393 of 2020 which is

¶18

impugned in the instant writ petition. It has been argued on behalf of the respondents that petitioner was given a show cause notice only after the incident had been duly inquired into by Circle OfÏcer, Sadar, Hamirpur and the petitioner was given an opportunity to explain his conduct, and his reply was fully considered by the disciplinary authority before awarding the punishment, moreover, the CCTV footage as shown to the petitioner was un-controverted and the petitioner is having no case to stand on against the punishment order as passed by the disciplinary authority and afÏrmed by the appellate authority.

¶19

It is also stated on behalf of the respondents that the judgement and order passed by learned Tribunal is also in consonance with the settled principles of law and the same is squarely covered by several verdicts given by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The petitioner was given opportunity to inspect file within the stipulated time frame but the said opportunity was not availed by him.

¶20

It has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the show cause notice dated 16.5.2019 was based upon the relevant evidence, specially the CCTV footage which was never denied nor controverted by the petitioner. The opportunity of inspecting the related and necessary documents was also given but the same was not availed by him within the stipulated time. Learned Tribunal relying upon various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court has arrived at a conclusion that the very process adopted by the respondent-state authorities in this case was flawless and as such there is hardly any ground available to interfere with the punishment awarded to the petitioner.

¶21

The petitioner cannot get the benefit of the judgement in the case of Deena Nath Chaubey (Supra) as the facts and circumstances of the case are entirely different from those of the present case judgment relied upon by the petitioner deals with the opportunity for production of the evidence which was denied by the disciplinary authority during departmental

¶22

proceedings, whereas in the present writ petition the facts are entirely different. The petitioner was given opportunity for inspecting the records within the time frame but the said opportunity was not availed by the petitioner.

¶23

For the reasons aforesaid, we do not find any illegality in the impugned judgment and order dated 1.11.2021 and 7.9.2022 passed in Claim Petition and Review Application respectively.

¶24

The writ petition thus lacks merits and is hereby dismissed .

¶25

Order Date :- 27.9.2022 RS

¶26

Digitally signed by RAKESH SINGH Date: 2022.12.01 14:50:28 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Raj Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rani Sushma Devi Mahila Mahavidyalay 4939M/S/04 Vs State of U.P.through Principal Secy.Higher Education and 2 Ors.

Sajjad Ahmad Vs State of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Energy Deptt.Lko.and 3 Others

C/M Marwar Inter College Thru Manager Miss 4720/2005 Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Madhyamik Shiksha and 4 Ors.

Director State Urban Development Agency Inre W.P.NO.6804SS05 Vs Shyam Sunder Dubey and Another

Dhodharam Post Graduate College Sewra Faizabad Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Higher Education and Others

Udai Pratap Singh Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Govt. of India Ministry of Defence , New Delhi and Others