Allowed

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

Allahabad HC6 May 2025WRIA/4431/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A police officer punished with censure entry for failing to take over a transferred investigation challenged the punishment, appeal rejection, and Tribunal order. The transfer-of-investigation order was found untraceable; the court held the disciplinary proceedings unwarranted and vitiated.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned Tribunal judgment, punishment (censure) order and appellate order set aside; no costs.

Inspector, Civil Police, Sunil Dutt Vs U.P. Public… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:27535-DB

¶3

Court No. - 1

¶4

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4431 of 2025

¶5

Petitioner :- Inspector, Civil Police, Sunil Dutt Respondent :- U.P. Public Service Tribunal Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pawan Kumar Misra,Sushil Kumar Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- Manish Mishra,C.S.C.

¶6

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

¶7

(1) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-State.

¶8

(2) The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for the following relief:-

¶9

"A writ or order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the judgment and order dated 30.1.2025 passed by the opp. party no.1, the punishment order dated 10.9.2024 passed by the opp. party no.4 and the Appellate Order dated 2.11.2024 passed by the opp. party no.3 as contained in Annexure Nos.1, 2 & 3 to this writ petition, with all consequential benefits."

¶10

(3) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the year 2023, the petitioner was posted as Station House Officer in Police Station- Ecotech-3, District - Gautam Buddh Nagar. The investigation of the Case Crime No.417 of 2023, under Section 380 I.P.C., Police Station- Ecotech-3, Gautam Buddh Nagar was being done by Sub-Inspector/Virendra Singh. The petitioner was informed that preliminary inquiry has been ordered against him, for his negligent act, with the allegation that proper progress in the aforesaid investigation was not made in pursuance of the directions issued by the senior officers of the petitioner. The said inquiry was conducted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, First, Central Noida, Commissionerate, Gautam Buddh Nagar by recording the

¶11

¶12

statements of the petitioner, Sub-Inspector/Virendra Singh and others.

¶13

(4) It has further been submitted that in the preliminary inquiry, the inquiry officer came to the conclusion that investigation of the aforesaid case was transferred by the senior officer vide order dated 22.10.2023 and the same was assigned to the petitioner, but the petitioner did not takeover the investigation of the aforesaid case, which clearly shows his negligence regarding his duty. Thereafter, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 1.6.2024, in response to which, the petitioner gave a detailed reply, but the same was not considered and he was awarded a punishment of Censure Entry by Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central NOIDA, Commissionerate, Gautam Buddh Nagar without any fault.

¶14

(5) It has next been submitted that the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, whereby, the appeal was rejected on 2.11.2024, then he filed Claim Petition No.2496 of 2024 "Sunil Dutt Vs. State of U.P. & Ors." on the ground that alleged order for transfer of investigation dated 22.10.2023 was never communicated to him.

¶15

(6) Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that in case any order is passed by the superior authority for transfer of the investigation, the same must have been communicated to two persons, viz., one to the Investigating Officer, who was conducting the investigation, and the other, to whom the investigation was assigned or transferred. But, in the present case, in case the order dated 22.10.2023 as regards transfer of investigation was placed by the dispatch clerk before the petitioner, why the second copy, which was to be addressed to the Investigating Officer, namely, Virendra Singh, was not given and in case, if it was given, then why he did not enter the said letter in the case diary. All these facts were not considered

¶16

¶17

by the learned Tribunal and Claim Petition was rejected with the observation that the petitioner was rightly held guilty of the irresponsible and indiscipline act.

¶18

(7) Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of the Court towards the statement of Sub-Inspector/Virendra Singh, the then Investigating Officer of crime case in question, who admitted that he has not received any transfer of investigation order. Therefore, question does not arise for entering the contents in the case diary. The Sub-Inspector/Virendra Singh also failed to explain that why he stopped the investigation and similarly, the petitioner in his statement has categorically stated that the Investigating Officer/Sub-Inspector/Virendra Singh has not prepared any parcha for transfer of the investigation and he never received any order by which investigation of the case was allegedly assigned to him, therefore, he did not takeover the investigation of the crime in question.

¶19

(8) Learned counsel for the petitioner has lastly submitted that the punishment dated 10.9.2024 awarding therein Censure Entry to the petitioner was passed merely on the basis of presumption, hence, kind indulgence of this Court is necessary.

¶20

(9) Learned Standing Counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner and has submitted that the investigation of the case in question was transferred by the Deputy Commissioner of Police vide order dated 22.10.2023 and said order was received by the In-charge Dispatch of Police Station, namely, Head Constable Dharmshila Rai, and the same was also placed before the petitioner, who received it and never returned it to the Head Constable, Dharmshila Rai. Thus, the impugned orders have rightly been passed.

¶21

(10) Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record available on record.

¶22

¶23

(11) The genesis of the punishment order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is that the petitioner has not obeyed the order of the superior authority dated 22.10.2023 whereby the investigation of the crime case in question was transferred from the then Investigating Officer to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, it was never communicated to him. Not only this, the details of the order dated 22.10.2023 were not entered into the case diary which is very much essential when the investigation has been transferred to some other person.

¶24

(12) When the petitioner filed an appeal, it was rejected by the Appellate Authority having no force in a mechanical manner. Thereafter, when the petitioner filed a Claim Petition, it was also dismissed solely on the statement of Head Constable 1280 Dharmashila Rai, who has stated in her statement before the Inquiry Officer that when she placed the order dated 22.10.2023 before the petitioner, he did not pay any heed. Therefore, the censure entry has rightly been awarded by the Disciplinary Authority and, the claim petition being of merit was dismissed.

¶25

(13) Since the entire matter revolves around the transfer of investigation order dated 22.10.2023 from Virendra Singh, SubInspector/the then Investigating Officer to the petitioner and it is not available on record, this Court vide order dated 23.04.2025 directed the Standing Counsel to produce the communication dated 22.10.2023, whereby the investigation of of Case Crime No. 417 of 2023, under Section 380 I.P.C. was transferred to the petitioner as well as to the previous Investigating Officer. It was also directed to clarify the manner in which the order dated 22.10.2023 was communicated to both Investigating Officers.

¶26

(14) Pursuant to the order dated 23.04.2025, the learned Standing Counsel, on the basis of instructions, submitted that the

¶27

¶28

aforesaid order is not traceable in the office of Deputy Commissioner of Police/Issuing Authority and thus, he was unable to explain the manner in which the order communicated to the then Investigating Officer as also the petitioner.

¶29

(15) When the transfer of investigation order dated 22.10.2023 is not in existence, though it is untraceable, and the said order was not properly communicated to two persons, who are very much necessary for carrying out the investigation, initiation of disciplinary proceedings for negligence of duty against the petitioner is unwarranted. Consequently, rest of the proceedings are also vitiated.

¶30

(16) Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed . The impugned judgment and order dated 30.1.2025 passed by the U.P. Public Services Tribunal, the punishment order dated 10.9.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central NOIDA, Commissionerate, Gautam Budh Nagar as also the Appellate Order dated 2.11.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Police, Headquarter, Commissionerate, Gautam Budh Nagar are hereby set aside . Consequences shall follow.

¶31

(17) No order as to costs.

¶32

[Rajeev Singh, J.] [Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.]

¶33

Order Date :- 6.5.2025 GauraV/-

¶34

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Inspector, Civil Police, Sunil Dutt 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

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

Kaushal Kishore Misra and 3 Others Vs S.B.I. Thru. Its Chairman Corporate Centre Maharashtra and 2 Others

State of U.P.Thru.Addl.Chief Secy. Deptt. State Tax Previously Tax and Registration Lko and Another Vs Surendra Kumar

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

State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. State Tax Anubhag 1 Lko. vs Santosh Kumar

Sunita Nishad and Another vs Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal Allahabad Thru. Registrar and 3 Others