Allowed

Kishan Goswami v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. of U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC6 Feb 2023/990/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a censure punishment imposed on a police constable. The court held that the disciplinary authority's order was unsustainable because it failed to consider points raised by the petitioner in his reply to the show cause notice. The impugned orders set aside and the matter remanded.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition allowed; the Tribunal's order, punishment order, and appellate order set aside; matter remanded to the disciplinary authority to pass appropriate orders after considering the petitio

Kishan Goswami Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

[1]

¶2

Court No. - 1

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 990 of 2023 Petitioner :- Kishan Goswami

¶4

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Of U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko. And Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Singh

¶6

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shikhar Anand

¶7

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.

¶8

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶9

1. Heard Shri Anand Singh Pawar, holding brief of Shri Ramesh Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner, Shri Alok Kumar Tiwari, holding brief of Shri Shikhar Anand, learned counsel for respondent No.2- U.P. State Public Service Tribunal and Shri Anand Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel for State/respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 as well as perused the material brought on record.

¶10

2. By means of instant writ petition, the petitioner, Kishan Goswami has challenged the judgment and order dated 05.03.2020 passed by State Public Service Tribunal, Indira Bhawan, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") in Claim Petition No.1045 of 2019: Kishan Goswami vs. State of U.P. and others , minor punishment order No.Da-120 of 2018

¶11

[2]

¶12

dated 11.09.2018 (censure entry) passed by the respondent No.4/ Superintendent of Police, Amethi and appellate order dated 14.05.2019 passed by the respondent No.3/Inspector General of Police, Ayodhya Range, Ayodhya, contained as Annexure Nos.1, 2 and 3 to the writ petition.

¶13

3. Briefly, stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as a Constable in the Civil Police. On 13.07.2018, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner stating that on 01.05.2018, the petitioner had gone to attend a wedding function at Raebareli without any prior information or leave. He had taken his service revolver with him and had fired celebratory shots in the wedding. Along with him, Constable Neeraj Kumar had also fired celebratory shots. It was proposed to impose a censure entry for the aforesaid act of the petitioner which involves non performance of his duty, misuse of the service revolver, gross negligence in performance of government duties, arbitrariness, apathy, inaction and indiscipline which was strongly deprecated. The petitioner has submitted a reply to the show cause notice on 30.07.2018 denying the charges.

¶14

4. The disciplinary authority passed an order dated 11.09.2018 stating that he had examined the explanation submitted by the petitioner. The allegation against him was established by

¶15

[3]

¶16

evidence and the explanation given by the petitioner was misleading and was not found to be satisfactory. The disciplinary authority imposed punishment of censure entry upon the petitioner. An appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed and so was Claim Petition No.1045 of 2019 filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal challenging the punishment order and the appellate order.

¶17

5. The petitioner has submitted that he had given a reply to the show cause notice categorically denying the allegations levelled against him. He had stated in his reply that after receipt of the notice, he had gone to the office and made a request for permitting him to inspect the file but he was not permitted to inspect the office. A copy of the inquiry report was not provided to him. He denied the allegations and stated that he had not gone to attend the wedding function in District Raebareli.

¶18

6. A perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner had submitted a detailed reply to the show cause notice but the disciplinary authority has not referred to the points raised by the petitioner in his reply and the same have not been dealt with. The punishment order has been passed without taking into consideration the points raised by the petitioner in his reply and, therefore, the same is not sustainable in law.

¶19

[4]

¶20

7. The Tribunal, dismissing the claim petition, holding that the disciplinary authority did not find the petitioner's explanation to be satisfactory and the punishment order did not suffer from any illegality or procedural error.

¶21

8. The purpose of giving an employee, an opportunity to show cause against the proposed punishment is to enable him to present his case and obviously, it is incumbent upon the authority to pass appropriate order after taking into consideration the explanation submitted by the employee. Calling for an explanation from the employee is not an empty formality and his explanation cannot be brushed aside by merely stating that the same is not found to be satisfactory.

¶22

9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the punishment order is unsustainable in law and so are the appellate order and the order passed by the Tribunal.

¶23

10. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is allowed . The order dated 05.03.2020 passed by Tribunal in Claim Petition No.1045 of 2019, the punishment order dated 11.09.2018 passed by respondent No.4 and appellate order dated 14.05.2019 passed by respondent No.3 are set aside. The matter is remanded to the disciplinary authority for passing appropriate orders after taking

¶24

[5]

¶25

into consideration the points raised by the petitioner in his reply,

¶26

in accordance with law.

¶27

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

¶28

Order Date :- 6.2.2023

¶29

Shubhankar

¶30

Digitally signed by :- SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Kishan Goswami v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. of U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishan Goswami v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. of U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko. 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

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Horticulture and Food Processing Govt. U.P. Lko. and Ors. Vs Indra Pal

Arvind Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Nanke Alias Dhani Ram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Public Works Deptt. Civil Sectt. U.P. Lko. and 7 Others

Satyendra Kumar Singh S/O Late Housila Bux Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Revenue and Others

State of U.P. Thru.Secy.Mahila Evam Bal Vikas Dept. andANR. Vs Narendra Kumar Tiwari and Ors.

Jagdish Narain Shukla P.I.L. Civil Vs State of U.P.through Secy. Urban Devp. Govt. of U.P.Lko.and