Dismissed

Constable Civil Police Virendra Kumar v. U.P. Public Secrvice Tribunal Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC9 Feb 2023/1248/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition challenging the U.P. Public Service Tribunal's order dismissing the petitioner's claim petition. The petitioner, a traffic police constable, had been awarded a censure for absence from duty to drink tea and allegedly demanding money for illegal entry. The petitioner himself admitted these acts. The court found no illegality in the Tribunal's decision to uphold

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; Tribunal's order dated 13.10.2022 affirmed.

Constable Civil Police Virendra Kumar Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1248 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Constable Civil Police Virendra Kumar Respondent :- U.P. Public Secrvice Tribunal Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sushil Kumar Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- Shikhar Anand,C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Amitabh Kumar Rai, the learned Addl. C.S.C. and Sri Samar Bahadur Yadav, Advocate holding brief of Sri Shikhar Anand, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶6

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 13.10.2022 passed by the State Public Service Tribunal (hereinafter referred as 'the Tribunal') dismissing the Claim Petition No. 2404 of 2021, which was filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 22.7.2021 whereby a censure entry was awarded to him.

¶7

The allegation against the petitioner was that while he was posted in Traffic Police at Ghaziabad and assigned the duty at U.P. Gate in the intervening night of 30.9.2020-1.10.2020, he was found near Wave Mall, far away from the designated place of his duty, and he was accused of demanding Rs. 500.00 for permitting entry of a bus wrongfully. A preliminary inquiry was held in which the petitioner was found guilty. The disciplinary authority issued a show-cause notice alongwith a copy of the preliminary-inquiry report. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show-cause notice, wherein he admitted that he had gone away from the designated place of his duty to have tea, and he did not categorically deny the allegation that he had demanded Rs. 500.00 for giving illegal entry to a bus. Thereafter, the

¶8

disciplinary authority passed the order dated 2.7.2021 awarding censure entry to the petitioner, which was affirmed in appeal.

¶9

While deciding the claim-petition filed by the petitioner challenging the punishment order and the appellate order, the Tribunal examined the record and found that during preliminary inquiry the petitioner had admitted that during checking he was found absent from the designated place of duty and he was found at Wave Mall and he stated that he had gone there to have tea. The Tribunal held that the petitioner is a Member of a Disciplined Force, where maintenance of discipline is the first and foremost requirement, and his admitted conduct warrants no interference in the punishment order and the appellate order.

¶10

We have considered the facts and circumstances of the case and perused the records.

¶11

A copy of the inquiry-report annexed with the writ petition indicates that during preliminary inquiry the petitioner had stated that while he was posted at U.P. Gate Barrier in the night of 30.9.2020-1.10.2020, he started feeling dullness at about 3.00 a.m. and, therefore, he had gone to have tea near Kaushambi Wave Mall. After submission of the inquiry-report the Senior Superintendent of Police had issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner and the petitioner had submitted reply to the same, in which also he had admitted that he had gone away from U.P. Gate Barrier to a place near Kaushambi Wave Mall for having tea and he did not deny the charge that he had demanded Rs. 500.00 for giving illegal entry to a bus.

¶12

The punishment order has been passed after issuance of the show-cause notice and after taking into consideration the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the show-cause

¶13

notice. We do not find any illegality in the judgment and order dated 13.10.2022 passed by the Tribunal. The writ petition lacks merits and the same is accordingly dismissed .

¶14

( Subhash Vidyarthi, J. ) ( Ramesh Sinha, J. )

¶15

Order Date :- 9.2.2023 A.Nigam

¶16

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Constable Civil Police Virendra Kumar v. U.P. Public Secrvice Tribunal Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Constable Civil Police Virendra Kumar v. U.P. Public Secrvice Tribunal Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surendra Singh Vs Satyendra Singh and Ors.

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation and Water Resources Deptt. Govt. Lko. and Another Vs Rajesh Kumar Chaturvedi

State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Irrigation and Water Resources Deptt. Lko. and Another Vs Surendra Pratap Singh

Kanti Devi and Another Vs State of Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Smt. Reeta Devi Vs Sri Rajendra Kumar

Sharad Verma Vs Ritu Katiyar