Sub Inspector (Civil Police) Apsar Miyan vs U.P. Public Service Tribunal Lko. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:32849-DB

Court No. - 1

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5623 of 2025

Petitioner :- Sub Inspector (Civil Police) Apsar Miyan Respondent :- U.P. Public Service Tribunal Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sushil Kumar Pathak,Pawan Kumar Misra Counsel for Respondent :- Manish Mishra,C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.

¶6

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

¶8

This petition has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 15.04.2025 passed by respondent no. 1, punishment order dated 12.07.2023 as well as appellate order dated 06.01.2024.

¶9

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner, who was working on the post of Sub-Inspector at P.S. Bhata, District Bareilly, was assigned the investigation of F.I.R. No. 478 of 2022, under Sections 8/21/29 NDPS Act. The said F.I.R. was lodged against four persons, namely, Shakir s/o Sabir Khan, Naseem s/o Raheesh Ahmad, Kallu @ Shahid s/o Azeemulla and Salim. The petitioner took over the investigation of the said case on 22.01.2023.

¶10

A preliminary inquiry was initiated against the petitioner with the charge that he was in collusion with the accused of the said case, Kallu @ Shahid, as neither he made any efforts to arrest the said accused Kallu @ Shahid nor collected the information related to the recovery of the contraband. The said accused-Kallu was a notorious criminal, against whom, several cases were registered in different police stations and the police initiated proceedings of attachment and succeeded by attaching the property of the said accused amounting to Rs.9 crore. Another charge made against the petitioner was that he was in contact with the said accused through one Muzeeb, who is the nephew of Kallu @ Shahid.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge against the petitioner was that he was negligent in performing his duties, which amounts to misconduct. The inquiry was conducted by Gaurav Singh-Circle Officer,

¶12

2

¶13

Faridpur, Bareilly, who submitted the preliminary inquiry report on 21.05.2023. Thereafter, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner with a proposed punishment for deduction of 30 days’ salary as a fine. The reply to the show cause notice dated 31^st May, 2023 was given by the petitioner stating therein that the investigation of F.I.R. in question was assigned to the petitioner on 20.01.2023, whereafter, he conducted raid at the house of accused-Kallu as well as Salim on 14.02.2023. The details of the same are mentioned in the case diary at Parch CD 13. Thereafter, again on the basis of input, the petitioner conducted raid on 23.02.2023 for arrest of Kallu @ Shahid at Mohalla Saray Nayi Basti, Kasba and Thana Fatehganj. The description of the same is also mentioned in CD 14. Similarly, on the basis of input, raids for the arrest of Kallu @ Shahid were conducted by the petitioner on 13.03.2023 and 25.03.2023. The descriptions of the said raids are also categorically mentioned in CD 15 and CD 16.

¶14

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as continuous raids were being conducted by the petitioner, the accused was in pressure, due to which, he surrendered before the court on 07.04.2023 and his remand was taken by the petitioner on 08.04.2023, description of which is mentioned in CD 17. The statement of the petitioner was recorded by Inquiry Officer, in which, he admitted the fact that the nephew of the accused-Kallu was making calls to him stating that the accused is critically ill and he will surrender very soon. However, the petitioner had not paid any heed to the said request and continuously made efforts to arrest the accused by conducting raids for his arrest. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, in his reply, also stated that he never made any call to the nephew of the accused.

¶15

However, punishment order dated 12.07.2023 was passed by respondent no. 4- Senior Superintendent of Police, Bareilly, by which, 30 days’ salary of the petitioner was deducted as a fine. Against the said punishment order, the petitioner preferred appeal before the D.I.G., Bareilly Range, but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 06.01.2024. Challenging the said appellate order, the petitioner filed a Claim Petition before the U.P. State Public Service Tribunal, in which, counter affidavit was filed by respondent no. 4, in para 5 of which, it is averred that petitioner had not made any effort for the arrest of the accused-Kallu and it was also found that the petitioner was closely acquainted to the said accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that the Tribunal wrongly dismissed the claim petition vide impugned order dated 15.04.2025 without considering the fact that the petitioner conducted multiple raids for the arrest of the said accused

¶16

3

¶17

on 14.02.2023, 23.02.2023, 13.03.2023 and 25.03.2023. It is also submitted that under the pressure of the arrest, the said accused-Kallu @ Shahid surrendered before the court and his remand was taken by the petitioner on 08.04.2023.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the Tribunal vide impugned order dismissed the claim petition on the basis of presumption that even if the petitioner had conducted continuous raids for the arrest of the said accused, even then he was in contact with the nephew of the said accused. The Tribunal also observed that the nephew of the accused called the petitioner six times since February, 2023, to April, 2023. Argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition merely on the basis of imagination that the petitioner had given favour to the accused as he was well connected with the accused.

¶19

It is also submitted that later on, the investigation of the case in question was assigned to another Investigating Officer, namely, Daya Shankar, whose statement was also recorded by the Inquiry Officer during the course of preliminary inquiry. In his statement, the Investigating Officer-Daya Shankar stated that twice Rs.50,000/- was sent to the petitioner for not taking the accused in police custody remand and later on, Rs.40,000/- was also given for the said purpose, totalling 1,40,000/-.

¶20

While refuting the said allegations, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the fact related to the said money was not examined during the course of preliminary inquiry and only vague and general allegations were alleged in the show cause notice as well as in the punishment order. It is, thus, submitted that the punishment order passed by respondent no. 4 as well as appellate order and the order passed by the Tribunal are liable to be set aside.

¶21

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that petitioner had taken Rs.1,40,000/- for not taking the accused in police custody remand, which fact came in the statement of the accused as well as in the statement of the Investigating Officer-Daya Shankar recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that petitioner had not made any effort for arresting the accused persons and, therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned orders.

¶22

We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and gone through the contents of the petition, impugned orders as well as other relevant documents.

¶23

4

¶24

Admittedly, the preliminary inquiry was initiated against the petitioner on the ground that petitioner, being Investigating Officer of the case in question, had not made any effort to arrest the accused or to get the information about the recovered article. Another charge made against the petitioner was that he was well connected with the accused. It is also admitted by the petitioner that the nephew of the accused was calling him that the accused was critically ill and he will be handed over very soon.

¶25

However, it is undisputed fact that the investigation of the case in question was assigned to the petitioner on 22.01.2023. It is evident from the record that even prior to assigning the investigation, the petitioner attempted to arrest the accusedKallu @ Shahid on 13.12.2022. It is further evident that after assigning of the investigation, the petitioner conducted the raids, on the basis of input, for the arrest of the accused on different dates, i.e., 14.02.2023, 23.02.2023, 13.03.2023 and 25.03.2023, without paying any heed on the alleged request of the nephew of the accused-Kallu. The details of the said raids are mentioned in CD 13, CD 14, CD 15 and CD 16 respectively. It is also evident that thereafter, the accused surrendered before the court and his remand was taken by the petitioner on 08.04.2023.

¶26

Indisputably, all these facts were not considered by the respondents in correct perspective while passing impugned orders.

¶27

This Court is of the considered view that the petitioner had made his efforts to arrest the accused-Kallu @ Shahid by conducting raids on various dates, i.e., 14.02.2023, 23.02.2023, 13.03.2023 and 25.03.2023, which fact is well established by the details of the said raids having been mentioned in CD 13, CD 14, CD 15 and CD 16. Moreover, as per Rules, upon institution of a formal inquiry, the grounds, on which, the action is proposed against the police officer, shall be so clear and precise as to give sufficient indication to the charged police officer of the facts and circumstances against him.

¶28

In view of above facts and discussions, the impugned orders are hereby set aside. The writ petition stands allowed.

¶29

Consequences to follow.

¶30

Order Date :- 23.5.2025 VKS

¶31

Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sub Inspector (Civil Police) Apsar Miyan v. U.P. Public Service Tribunal Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sub Inspector (Civil Police) Apsar Miyan v. U.P. Public Service Tribunal Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

U.O.I. Thru. General Manager N.E. Railway Gorakhpur and 3 Others vs Smt. Shakuntala

Manish Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 7 Others

Rajesh Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Environment Climate Change Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Kishori Trivedi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Excise Deptt. Sectt. Lko and 4 Others

Iqbal Ahmad vs Bar Council of U.P. Thru. Chairman and 4 Others

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Excise) Deptt. Lko. and Another vs Pingaksha Tripathi