Dismissed

Sub Inspector (Civil Police) Rahul Kaushik v. U.P. Public Service Tribunal, Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC16 Dec 2024WRIA/1862/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court dismissed the petition challenging a censure entry imposed on a police officer. The Court held that furnishing a copy of the preliminary enquiry report is not mandatory under Rule 14(2) and the Tribunal did not commit an error in dismissing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the punishment order and Tribunal order was dismissed.

Sub Inspector (Civil Police) Rahul Kaushik… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:84024-DB

¶2

Court No. - 1

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1862 of 2023 Petitioner :- Sub Inspector (Civil Police) Rahul Kaushik Respondent :- U.P. Public Service Tribunal, Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sushil Kumar Pathak,Vijai Shankar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- Shikhar Anand,C.S.C.,Manish Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Vijay Shankar Tripathi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the records.

¶6

By means of the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 31.03.2022, passed by U.P. State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow in Claim Petition No.777 of 2021. The petitioner has also sought quashing of punishment order dated 19.06.2019, appellate order dated 22.02.2020 and the revisional order dated 11.06.2020, which were challenged before the learned Public Services Tribunal.

¶7

Briefly stated, facts of the case are that while the petitioner was serving as a Sub Inspector, the Superintendent of Police, Hapur issued a show cause notice dated 05.04.2019 to him regarding negligence and dereliction of duty in conducting an investigation. The petitioner was directed to show cause as to why should he not be punished by awarding a censure entry. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 14.06.2019.

¶8

On 19.06.2019 the Superintendent of Police passed an order imposing the punishment of censure entry against the petitioner. It is recorded in the punishment order that the petitioner has stated in his reply submitted in response to the show cause

¶9

notice that no direction or guidance had been issued by any superior officer upon the charge sheet dated 30.09.2013 submitted by him which indicates that the superior officers were satisfied with the investigation. The disciplinary authority found that the Circle Officer has raised objection against the chargesheet submitted by the petitioner, where upon preliminary enquiry was instituted. This falsifies the petitioner's contention that the superior officers were satisfied with the investigation conducted by him. The disciplinary authority found that the petitioner had not conducted the investigation in a proper manner, which establishes the guilt of the petitioner in conducting the investigation. The appellate authority and the revisional authority affirmed the punishment order.

¶10

While examining the validity of the aforesaid orders the learned Public Services Tribunal has held that the disciplinary authority has passed the punishment order after due consideration of the points raised by the petitioner in his reply and the punishment order has been passed after a proper analysis of the facts of the case. The punishment order is a reasoned and speaking order which has been passed after giving ample opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the decision making process does not suffer from any error. The allegation levelled against the petitioner in the show cause notice issued to him has been found to be established, which has been affirmed in appeal and revision after due consideration.

¶11

Assailing the validity of the order passed by the learned Tribunal, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the punishment order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as well as the mandatory provisions contained in Rule 14 (2) of U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 in as much as a copy of

¶12

the preliminary enquiry report had not been provided to the petitioner.

¶13

The punishments are defined in Rule 4 of the aforesaid Rules of 1991 as per which censure entry is minor penalty. Rule 5 of the Rules of 1991 provides that cases in which minor punishments may be awarded shall be dealt with in accordance with the procedure laid down in sub Rule (2) of Rule 14. Sub Rule (2) of Rule 14 provides as follows:

¶14

"14. Procedure for conducting departmental proceedings.

¶15

(1).....

¶16

(2). Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) punishments in cases referred to in sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 may be imposed after informing the Police Officer in writing of the action proposed to be taken against him and of the imputations of act or omission on which it is proposed to be taken and giving him a reasonable opportunity of making such representation as he may wish to make against the proposal."

¶17

Rule 14 (2) merely makes it mandatory for the disciplinary authority to inform the police officer in writing about action proposed to be taken against him and of the imputations on which it is proposed to be taken and to give him a reasonable opportunity of making a representation against the proposed action. It is nowhere provided that a copy of preliminary enquiry report shall be submitted to the officer concerned.

¶18

The object of holding the preliminary enquiry is merely for arriving at a satisfaction that initiation of a disciplinary proceeding is warranted against the employee concerned and not to establish the guilt of the employee. Neither there is any provision in the relevant Rules making it mandatory that a copy of the preliminary enquiry report shall be provided to the

¶19

employee concerned, nor has any prejudice been caused to the petitioner by not providing a copy of the preliminary enquiry report.

¶20

A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner against the proposed action of the award of censure entry and the punishment order was passed after taking into consideration the points raised by the petitioner in his reply to the show cause notice. The impugned order has been passed in accordance with the procedure laid down in Rule 14 (2) of the aforesaid Rules of 1991 and there appears to be no illegality in the decision making process adopted by the Superintendent of Police while passing the impugned punishment order.

¶21

The learned Public Services Tribunal has rightly held in the impugned order that the disciplinary authority has passed the order after due consideration of the points raised by the petitioner before passing the order impugned. All the facts were thoroughly considered while passing the order impugned and the same cannot be put in the category of non-speaking and unreasonable order.

¶22

There appears to be no illegality in the order passed by learned Tribunal warranting any interference by this court in exercise of its power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is bereft of any merit and the same is dismissed .

¶23

[Subhash Vidyarthi, J.] [A.R. Masoodi, J.]

¶24

Order Date :- 16.12.2024 Ram.

¶25

Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sub Inspector (Civil Police) Rahul Kaushik v. U.P. Public Service Tribunal, Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sub Inspector (Civil Police) Rahul Kaushik v. U.P. Public Service 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prabhat Kumar Maheshwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 5 Others

Union of India Thru. Its Secy. Ministry. of Railway New Delhi and 4 Others Vs Dinesh Kumar @ Dinesh Kumar Sharma

Prabhat Kumar Maheshwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 5 Others

Union of India Thru.Secy.Ministry of Post Telecommunication and It Deptt.Post, New Delhi and Others Vs Mitthu Lal

Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Communication and It , Deptt. of Posts, New Delhi and Others Vs Om Prakash Shukla

Union of India Thru. the Secy. Ministry of Post , New Delhi and Others Vs Urmila Devi