Abhay Kumar Mishra Vs U.P. State Public Service Tribunal Lucknow Thru. Member and 2 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:30123-DB

Court No. - 1

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5415 of 2025

Petitioner :- Abhay Kumar Mishra Respondent :- U.P. State Public Service Tribunal Lucknow Thru. Member And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Shukla,Preeti Shukla (Tiwari) Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the petitioner is taken on record.

¶7

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Prafulla Kumar Yadav, ACSC, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶8

3. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to assail the order dated 30.10.2023 passed by the U.P. Public Service Tribunal, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition assailing the order of minor punishment dated 15.03.2019 forfeiting the salary of 25 days as well as the appellate order dated 11.12.2019.

¶9

4. The facts, as have emerged from the records, are that the petitioner was posted as Constable at District Raebareily and while on patrol duty on the intervening night of 22/23 of August, 2018, along with Head Constable, Radhe Shyam Yadav, Home Guards, Mahesh Yadav and Ram Prakash Mishra on a jeep had intercepted some vehicles carrying

¶10

foodgrains. At about 11:00 PM, while proceeding from Village Sirsa towards the Kusmaura turn, they saw three tractor-trolleys and inquired about their movement at night. It was informed that the trolleys were loaded with wheat and were headed to the Mandi for sale. The petitioner on suspecting the version asked the drivers to take the trolleys to the concerned police station. A demand of ₹1.5 lakh was allegedly made for their release. However, with the intervention of the Pradhan of Village Tahpur, ₹5,000 was paid in cash, on an assurance to pay the remaining ₹95,000 after the wheat was sold, upon which the trolleys were released.

¶11

5. It transpires from the record that a complaint was made by the concerned MLA, Sitapur against the petitioner for making illegal demands and threatening the drivers of trolleys to falsely implicate in criminal cases. Based on the aforesaid complaint, a preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Sitapur, who, after examining the relevant witnesses, found the petitioner guilty and submitted the enquiry report on 30.08.2018.

¶12

6. Thereafter, the petitioner was placed under suspension, however, the suspension order was subsequently revoked. The petitioner was then served with a show cause notice dated 01.02.2019, along with a copy of the preliminary enquiry report dated 30.08.2018, whereby he was granted 15 days to file a response with respect to

¶13

the allegations of making an illegal demand of ₹1.5 lakh from the drivers of the trolleys who were en route to the Mandi to sell wheat loaded on the said trolleys. It was further alleged that after receiving ₹5,000 in cash and an assurance from the Pradhan that the remaining amount of ₹95,000 would be provided later, the vehicles were released. Thus, the said act of the petitioner amounted to overreaching the authirty in the performance of duties, as well as indiscipline and slackness. After receiving the petitioner's response, a punishment order dated 15.03.2019 was passed, whereby the petitioner was awarded a minor punishment under Rule 4(b)(2), in the form of a fine equivalent to 25 days' salary.

¶14

7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid punishment order dated 15.03.2019, the petitioner preferred a departmental appeal under Rule 21 of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1991, which was dismissed on 11.12.2019. Subsequently, the petitioner filed Claim Petition No. 1162/2020 before the Learned Tribunal, specifically pleading that the entire disciplinary proceedings were initiated under influence of the local MLA; that the Inquiry Officer had not conducted the enquiry properly; and further, that the punishment order was assailed on the grounds that the fine imposed was more appropriate for criminal offences, and that the Disciplinary Authority had not disclosed the facts and documents on the basis of which the

¶15

allegations against the petitioner were found to be proved.

¶16

8. The Tribunal, while delving with the issue, relying upon the statements of the relevant witnesses, and after taking cognizance of the relevant facts that the procedure as provided in the Rules was duly adhered to by the Disciplinary Authority, and the order of punishment has been passed after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by a reasoned and speaking order, dismissed the claim petition preferred by the petitioner.

¶17

9. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred the present writ petition assailing the judgment & order dated 30.10.2023 passed by the Tribunal, as well as the order of punishment dated 15.03.2019 and appellate order dated 11.12.2019.

¶18

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner never took the vehicles to the police station and that the Incharge of the police station was duly informed about the interception of trolleys. It has been further submitted that the trolleys were released immediately on the instructions of the In-charge. His further submission is that the petitioner's reply was not duly considered and the preliminary enquiry was not conducted in accordance with Paragraph 486 of the Police Regulations. It is also submitted that the order of punishment is nonspeaking and not in conformity with the provisions

¶19

of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1991.

¶20

11. Per contra, Sri Prafulla Kumar Yadav, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents, has vehemently argued that although the petitioner was initially suspended, he was subsequently awarded a minor punishment in accordance with the procedure laid down under Rule 14(2) of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1991. This rule places an obligation on the competent authority to inform the delinquent employee in writing of the proposed action and to provide an opportunity of hearing. In the present case, a show cause notice dated 01.02.2019 was duly issued, and after considering the petitioner's reply dated 20.02.2019, the order of punishment dated 15.03.2019 was rightly passed. Therefore, the findings of the Learned Tribunal do not suffer from any infirmity.

¶21

12. It has been further submitted that, in the preliminary enquiry conducted, the colleague of the petitioner, namely, Mahesh Yadav, specifically stated in his testimony that he was on patrol duty with the petitioner. He deposed that when the vehicles were stopped by the petitioner and the drivers were asked to produce the documents, they failed to do so. Consequently, they were directed to proceed to the police station with their trolleys. Mahesh Yadav sat on one of the trolleys, while the other was driven by one Sri Chhannu,

¶22

and the petitioner reached the police station by jeep. Head Constable Radhe Shyam also gave a statement supporting this version of events. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the veracity of these facts, particularly that the petitioner compelled the drivers of the trolleys to come to the police station in order to exert pressure on them to meet the demands allegedly made by him.

¶23

13. Having heard learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of record, it transpires that a written statement was filed by the State/Respondents, in which it was specifically mentioned that, on the basis of the complaint made by the local MLA, a fact-finding enquiry was conducted to ascertain the correctness of the allegations levelled against the petitioner. Based on the statements of the witnesses and the material on record, the Enquiry Officer found the allegations to be true and submitted the report. Thereafter, on the basis of the findings in the aforesaid preliminary enquiry report, a decision was taken to initiate proceedings for imposition of a minor punishment under Rule 4(b), in accordance with the provisions of Rule 14(2) of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1991. Rule 14(2) provides that punishments in cases referred to in sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 against police officers may be imposed after informing the officer in writing of the action proposed to be taken against him and of the imputations of acts or omissions on

¶24

which the proposed action is based, and after giving him a reasonable opportunity to make a representation. Since the procedure provided under the Rules was duly followed, there is no illegality in the order of punishment.

¶25

14. Thus, having regard to the aforesaid rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties in the light of the facts of this case, it is abundantly clear that the petitioner has been awarded minor punishment after giving him the show cause notice dated 01.02.2019 and after considering the reply submitted by him, and the Tribunal has considered each aspect of the matter in its correct perspective, therefore, we are of the considered view that there is no illegality or irregularity in the judgment and order dated 30.10.2023 and thus, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which is accordingly dismissed .

¶26

15. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶27

(Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J) (Attau Rahman Masoodi, J) Order Date :- 21.5.2025 A.Dewal

¶28

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

Abhay Kumar Mishra v. U.P. State Public Service Tribunal Lucknow Thru. Member and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhay Kumar Mishra v. U.P. State Public Service Tribunal Lucknow Thru. Member 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

Shiv Lal Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 4 Others

Namish Rastogi and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Affairs Lko. and Others

Shivam Nigam and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Others

No. 15417485K,EX-NK (Ts) Mujavar Habib Husen Vs Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Lko. Thru. Registrar, Lko. and 4 Others

Ram Chandra Saroj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Mohd. Inam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others