Dismissed

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Secrt. Lko. and Others v. Rajendra Kumar

Allahabad HC31 Jan 2023/844/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court adjudicated an appeal against the State Public Service Tribunal's order quashing a police censure entry. The Court found no illegality in the Tribunal's decision and affirmed that the lower tribunal had correctly applied natural justice principles.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition filed by the State was dismissed holding there was no illegality in the Tribunal's judgment.

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Secrt… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 844 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Secrt. Lko. And Others Respondent :- Rajendra Kumar

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- C.S.C.

¶5

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

¶6

Heard the learned Addl. C.S.C. for the State-appellant and Sri Shishir Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondent, and perused the record.

¶7

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment and order dated 26.8.2021 passed by the State Public Service Tribunal (hereinafter referred as ‘the Tribunal’) in Claim Petition No. 145 of 2020.

¶8

The aforesaid claim-petition had been filed by the respondent challenging the validity of an order dated 29.7.2019 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow (hereinafter referred as ‘the S.S.P.’), awarding censure-entry to the respondent. The order dated 29.7.2019 states that on 30.6.2019 a show-cause notice was issued to the respondent asking him to give an explanation as to why a censure entry be not made in his character-roll. The respondent submitted an explanation stating that on 28.6.2019 at about 13 hrs. a lady named Rabri Devi came to the office of the Circle Officer, Cantt. and inquired about him. The respondent told that the Circle Officer was not present in the office and thereafter the lady went away without stating anything; that the aforesaid lady used to come to meet the Circle Officer off and on and she used to go away after meeting her and on that date also the lady had come as usual and she had gone away after inquiring about the Circle Officer.

¶9

Had the lady given any complaint or application, the respondent would have brought the same to the knowledge of the Circle Officer. The S.S.P. awarded censure entry to the respondent stating that apart from giving the aforesaid explanation the respondent did not furnish any evidence of his innocence and his explanation is without any force. The S.S.P. further stated that in a preliminary inquiry the charges levelled against the respondent were found to be established and he has been found to be guilty.

¶10

The Tribunal quashed the order dated 29.7.2019 holding that a copy of the preliminary inquiry report was not provided to the respondent. The Tribunal has relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Surat Singh & ors. v. Inspector General of Police, (2005) 2 UPLBEC 1154 , wherein this Hon’ble Court held that “Disciplinary Authority relied upon statements recorded in preliminary inquiry report while imposing punishment-Thus, copy of preliminary inquiry report ought to have been supplied to petitioners-Non-supply thereof, is violation of mandatory requirement of Rule 14 (2)-Apart from it, opportunity of hearing, also be given-That too was not given-Mere permission to inspect file-Not sufficient-Principle of natural justice also violatedPunishment has to be set aside."

¶11

The Tribunal has relied on a decision of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & ors. V. Mohd. Ramzaan Khan, A.I.R. (1991) 1 SCC 588 , wherein it was held that "it is necessary for the department to supply a copy of the enquiry report and non supply of the enquiry report is fatal and vitiates the entire enquiry proceedings. It seems that if preliminary enquiry report has been relied department then the copy of the report is required upon by the to be furnished in order to give the delinquent an opportunity to represent the matter sufficiently when penal consequences flow from the Show Cause Notice. In the present case merely by issuing a

¶12

direction to inspect the file was not sufficient. The respondents should have supplied the copy of the enquiry report and since the enquiry report was not supplied the principles of Natural Justice was violated and the petitioner was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to defend his case and consequently the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be quashed.”

¶13

In the case of the respondent, the punishment order dated 29.7.2019 clearly states that the explanation of the respondent was found to be without force and in the preliminary inquiry the charges against him have been established and he has been found to be guilty. In these circumstances it was necessary that a copy of the preliminary inquiry report should have been provided to the respondent.

¶14

A perusal of the punishment order dated 29.7.2019 indicates that the same has been passed without reference to any material, except for the preliminary inquiry, which would establish guilt of the respondent and the respondent has been punished merely because he could not prove himself to be innocent. The order was passed against the basic principle that for imposing any punishment a person has to be proved to be guilty and any punishment cannot be imposed merely because the employee could not prove himself to be innocent.

¶15

In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any illegality in the judgment and order dated 26.8.2021 passed by the Tribunal. The writ petition lacks merits and the same is accordingly dismissed .

¶16

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

¶17

Order Date :- 31.1.2023 A.Nigam

¶18

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

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Secrt. Lko. and Others v. Rajendra Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Secrt. Lko. and Others v. Rajendra Kumar

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

Ram Bilas Vs State of U.P Thru.Secy.Deptt. of Revenue Lko.and Anr.

State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Lok Nirman Vibhag and 4 Ors. Vs Sabiha Parveen S/S 307/2006

Vishal Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Housing and Urban Planning Civil Sectt. U.P. Lko. and Others

State of U.P.Secy Home Inre W.P.NO.4281 S/S 1998 Vs Krishna Mohan Misra and 16 Others

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Basic Edu. Govt. of U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Others Vs Durgawati Singh and Others

Managing Director U.P. Food and Essentials Commodities Corporation Ltd. Lko. and Another Vs Radha Yadav and Another