Dismissed

Pooran Singh Sub-Inspector v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC18 Oct 2022WRIA/42918/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging a disciplinary penalty of a censure entry. The court held that as Chowki Incharge, the petitioner failed to promptly take custody of a dead body or draw up a Panchnama, leading to a law and order situation, rendering the punishment order well-reasoned and sustainable.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; censure entry affirmed; no interference in disciplinary proceedings.

Pooran Singh Sub-Inspector Vs State of U.P. and… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 42918 of 2011

¶3

Petitioner :- Pooran Singh Sub-Inspector Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Gautam,Atipriya Gautam,Vinod Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Mishra learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

¶6

Present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 08.2.2010 passed by the disciplinary authority whereby penalty of censure entry has been awarded to the petitioner. That order has been affirmed in appeal and revision vide orders dated 15.7.2010 and 01.4.2011.

¶7

In short, at the relevant time, petitioner was posted as Chowki Incharge at police chowki Sursi, police station Thathiya, District Kannauj. In the early hours of 19/20.3.2009, a dead body of a Constable posted at the said chowki was found hanging from a tree outside the police chowki. Undisputedly, petitioner gained knowledge of the same through a Constable Anil Kumar Singh. Having gained knowledge, instead of acting promptly and taking custody of the dead body as also instead of drawing up the proceedings in accordance with the requirements in law, the petitioner allowed time to pass. In the meantime, a large gathering assembled at the spot and a law order situation arose. On that slackness of duty shown by the petitioner, he was found guilty in the enquiry and censure entry was awarded.

¶8

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is, the

¶9

petitioner acted in accordance with the law inasmuch as he had given due intimation of the occurrence to his higher officers including the Circle Officer and others. Also, he would submit, the petitioner alongwith superior officers remained present at the place of occurrence and controlled the situation. Third, it has been submitted, in any case, on similar charge, SHO of police Thathiya was let off with a warning whereas the petitioner has been victimised. Further submission has been advanced to indicate defect in the punishment order inasmuch as, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, due consideration has not been made to the explanation furnished by the petitioner and only conclusion has been recorded in a mechanical manner.

¶10

The above submissions cannot be accepted as correct. In the first place, as Chowki Incharge, it was the primary duty of the petitioner to have acted effectively and promptly. Inasmuch as the occurrence was of the intervening night of 19/20.3.2009 and further due intimation was received by the petitioner in the early morning, he did not have the liberty of time to act belatedly and allow crowd to gather at the place of occurrence and a law order situation to arise.

¶11

Besides the fact that the deceased was a Constable serving at the said chowki, as a first responder, the Chowki Incharge ought to have made a full and effective compliance of law. It necessarily included his duty to take the dead body in police custody and draw up necessary Panchnama. The essential facts in this regard are not disputed. Therefore, neither it can be accepted that the petitioner acted with due diligence nor it can be accepted that the case of the petitioner is similar to that of the SHO or the Circle Officer. Those officers were not placed in such proximity to the occurrence and those officers were not directly responsible to articulate the action of the police

¶12

authorities immediately upon gaining knowledge of the occurrence, as the petitioner. As a trained police personnel, petitioner failed to discharge his obligations. He cannot hide behind his superior officers to claim any benefit. The punishment order in the context of censure entry awarded is sufficiently well reasoned as may never warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

¶13

Censure entries have limited life of five years. It is expected that subject to that restriction further service conditions of the petitioner would have been maintained.

¶14

With the above observation, writ petition is dismissed .

¶15

Order Date :- 18.10.2022 Faraz

¶16

Digitally signed by FARAZ AHMAD Date: 2022.10.19 10:17:26 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pooran Singh Sub-Inspector v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pooran Singh Sub-Inspector v. State of U.P. and 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

Amrendra Nath Rai Vs Deputy Director of Education (Secondary) and 3 Others

Dayaram Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sriram Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Arun Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Others

Const. 125/201 C.P. Jaswant Giri Vs State of U.P. and Others

Arun Chaudhary Vs High Court Judicature at Allahabad Thru Its R.G.and Another