Pankaj Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. of U.P. Vidhan Bhawan Lko. and 2 Others

¶1

1

¶2

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:24801-DB Reserved on :- 20.03.2025

¶3

Pronounced on :- 30.04.2025

¶4

Court No. - 1

¶5

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2501 of 2025

¶6

Petitioner :- Pankaj Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Of U.P. Vidhan Bhawan Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shireesh Kumar,Utkarsh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶7

Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶8

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.

¶9

2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:-

¶10

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment dated 22.01.2025 passed in Reference Application No. 281 of 2024.

¶11

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to declare the petitioner entitled to all the consequential service benefits consequent upon quashing of the order dated 26.08.2023 and judgment dated 22.01.2025."

¶12

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was posted as In-charge/Station House Officer, Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District- Gonda from 02.10.2021 to 27.10.2022. On 27.10.2022,

¶13

2

¶14

his presence was required for evidence in a pending trial in Barabanki Court, for which, he entered his ravangi in General Diary at G.D. No. 101 at 22:33 hours for joining the said proceedings and proceeded to Barabanki, but suddenly he felt unwell in the midway near Ramnagar, for which, he took medicine from a doctor. Thereafter, he went to his hometown at District- Azamgarh in place of going to Barabanki for attending the evidence proceedings.

¶15

It has further been submitted that on the next day, i.e., on 28.10.2022, the petitioner was examined by a Medical Officer at P.H.C. Tarwa, District- Azamgarh. The petitioner also informed about his ill health to his senior officers through a registered letter dated 23.12.2022. After getting recovered from illness, he appeared before Superintendent of Police, Gonda on 14.03.2023 along with the illness certificate, and he was allowed to join his duties and was ordered to report to police-line.

¶16

It has next been submitted that later on, a show cause notice dated 14.06.2023 was issued to the petitioner with the averment that he was absent from his duty from 27.10.2022 to 14.03.2023. In the said notice, it is also mentioned that during the said period, a petition bearing Writ Petition No. 5652 of 2022 arising from Case Crime No. 218 of 2022 under Sections 363, 504, 352 I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District- Gonda was listed before the High Court at Lucknow, but as the petitioner, being an Investigating Officer, was absent from duty, the instructions could not be placed before the Court in time, which created awkward situation for the Department. It was also mentioned therein that the petitioner had sent information about his illness through a registered post after two months from the date of his absence. Further, during the course of fact finding inquiry, his presence was found at Lucknow, therefore, no salary would be paid to him for the period of his absence,

¶17

3

¶18

i.e., 27.10.2022 to 14.03.2023 on the basis of the principles of No Work No Pay.

¶19

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that by the said notice, explanation was asked from the petitioner within a period of 15 days from the date of issuance of the show cause notice, in response to which, he gave a reply in detail, but the same was not considered by the competent authority and punishment order dated 26.08.2023 was passed by Superintendent of Police, Gonda applying the principles of No Work No Pay for the alleged period of absence, i.e., from 27.10.2022 to 14.03.2023 and censure entry was also made for dereliction of duties.

¶20

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the show cause notice was given under the provisions of U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 , and no punishment is mentioned in the said Rule for No Work No Pay. Moreover, the punishment of censure entry was also not proposed in the show cause notice.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that learned Tribunal failed to consider the case of the petitioner and rejected his claim petition. It has vehemently been submitted that an illness certificate was placed before the authority concerned, which was accepted and the petitioner's leave for the period from 27.10.2022 to 14.03.2023 has to be deducted from his leave account. It has, thus, been submitted that this petition is liable to be allowed by setting aside the impugned order passed by learned Tribunal as well as the authorities.

¶22

4. Learned Standing Counsel vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner and has submitted that prior to the issuance of the show cause notice, a fact finding inquiry was conducted and preliminary inquiry

¶23

4

¶24

report was given to the petitioner. He has further submitted that in the show cause notice, it is mentioned that preliminary inquiry was conducted and during the course of fact finding inquiry, the presence of the petitioner was found at his house situated in Lucknow and this fact is also not denied by the petitioner either in his reply to the show cause notice or in the present petition.

¶25

Learned Standing Counsel has vehemently submitted that it is undisputed fact that the petitioner had reported about his illness after about two months from the date of his absence from duties. Drawing attention of this Court on the illness certificate annexed with the petition, learned Standing Counsel has next submitted that the illness certificate was issued on 17.03.2023 from the Office of Chief Medical Superintendent, District Male Hospital, Azamgarh with the averment that the petitioner was medically examined on 10.11.2022 by Dr. Rajnath, who opined for bed rest of 121 days for the petitioner, i.e, from 10.11.2022 to 11.03.2023, however, in the said illness certificate, it is also handwritten that 'fit for duty 11/03/2023' . This creates doubt that when the doctor is examining the patient on 10.11.2022, how he can opine four months prior that the patient is fit for doing duty on 11.03.2023.

¶26

Learned Standing Counsel has lastly submitted that the petitioner has not moved any application for grant of leave and being a responsible member of police force, he ought not to have left his duties without giving information about his leave. It has, thus, been submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly appreciated the facts of the case, and therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶27

5. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel and gone through the contents of this petition, the impugned order dated 22.01.2025 passed by

¶28

5

¶29

State Public Services Tribunal, show cause notice dated 14.06.2023, reply of the petitioner in response to the show cause notice, illness certificate dated 17.03.2023, order dated 26.08.2023 passed by Superintendent of Police, Gonda as well as other relevant enclosures.

¶30

6. We find that it is admitted case of the petitioner that he was relieved from the police station on 27.10.2022 for giving evidence before the trial Court at Barabanki, but he went to his hometown at Azamgarh in place of going to Barabanki District Court for evidence. It is also admitted that the petitioner had not given any information either telephonically or in writing about his ill health to his senior officers on the same day, i.e., on 27.10.2022. Later on, he sent a letter informing his senior officers about his illness on 23.12.2022 after about two months from his absence from duties. Further, the illness certificate relied by the petitioner was issued on 17.03.2023 by the Office of Chief Medical Superintendent, District Male Hospital, Azamgarh, which reveals that the petitioner was examined by Dr. Rajnath on 10.11.2022 and was advised for bed rest of 121 days from 10.11.2022 to 11.03.2023. Though, the said illness certificate is a typed letter, but the sentence, i.e., "fit for duty 11/03/2023" is handwritten in it, which creates doubt that once a person is being examined on 10.11.2022 and he is being advised for bed rest upto 11.03.2023, how his fitness can be examined prior to four months. On this point, an explanation was also asked from learned counsel for the petitioner who, in response to that, failed to satisfy this Court.

¶31

Admittedly, the petitioner had not moved any application for grant of leave, hence, the absence of the petitioner is attributable to his unbecoming conduct having consequence of a wilful act. Moreover, Rule 73, Chapter X of Financial Handbook, Vol.- II, Part- II to IV empowers the authority concerned to pass an order for 'No Work No Pay' for the purpose of willful absence from duty.

¶32

6

¶33

7. In view of above facts and circumstances coupled with the fact that in the fact finding inquiry, willful absence of the petitioner was found, this Court is of the view that the learned Tribunal has considered all the materials in correct perspective and passed the order dated 22.01.2025 requiring no interference by this Court.

¶34

8. With above observations, the writ petition is misconceived and the same stands dismissed .

¶35

Order Date :- April 30, 2025 Arpan

¶36

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

Pankaj Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. of U.P. Vidhan Bhawan Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. of U.P. Vidhan Bhawan Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Inspector, Civil Police, Sunil Dutt vs U.P. Public Service Tribunal Lko. and Others

Bal Krishna Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Panchayati Raj and 5 Others

Ex. Signalman Kirpal Singh Vs U.O.I. Thru. Its Secy. Ministry of Defence, New Delhi and Ors.

State of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Animal Husbandry Lucknow and Anr. Vs Dr. Basant Singh

Pankaj Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. of U.P. Vidhan Bhawan Lko. and 2 Others

Adarsh Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies Deptt. Lko. and 7 Others