Sub Inspector (Civil Police) ... vs U.P. Public Service Tribunal ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 10808 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 1
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2794 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Sub Inspector (Civil Police) Dwarika Nath Yadav
 
Respondent :- U.P. Public Service Tribunal Indira Bhawan Lko. And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sushil Kumar Pathak
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Shikhar Anand,C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.

Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State counsel Shri Anil Kumar Singh Bisen.

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging an order dated 02.09.2022 passed by the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal, whereby Claim Petition No.989 of 2019 filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and the learned Tribunal has refused to interfere in the order of punishment of censure passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi, dated 21.09.2018.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that learned Tribunal has completely failed to consider the legal ground which was raised by the petitioner assailing the order of punishment that the order passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police awarding punishment of censure is not a speaking and reasoned order. He further stated that the learned Tribunal also failed to consider the fact that each and every point raised by the petitioner in his reply to the show cause notice has not been considered and accordingly the order passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police could not be sustained.

Placing reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered on 24.01.2023 by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ -A No.648 of 2023, Constable (Civil Police) Sandeep Kumar Vs. U.P. Public Service Tribunal, Lko. and others, it has been argued by Shri Pathak, learned counsel representing the petitioner that it has clearly been held in the said judgment that any order passed by the Disciplinary Authority has to be informed of reasons and in absence of reasons, the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority cannot be sustained.

On the aforesaid counts, it has been argued and urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that the judgment passed by the Tribunal as also the punishment order are not sustainable.

On the other hand, learned State counsel has argued that the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is highly misconceived for the reason that the Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi while passing the punishment order dated 21.09.2018 has not only considered the submissions made by the petitioner in his reply to the show cause notice, but has also given reasons as to why the explanation offered by the petitioner could not be accepted. In the aforesaid view, the submission of the learned State counsel Shri Anil Kumar Singh Bisen is that the writ petition lacks merit which deserves to be dismissed as its threshold.

We have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the records available before us on this writ petition. The petitioner while posted at Police Station Rohania, District Varanasi in the year 2013 was entrusted with an investigation of Case Crime No.443 of 2013, under Sections 307/354-ka of I.P.C. The investigation of the said criminal case remained with the petitioner from 20.12.2013 till 17.05.2014, however, it appears that in the aforesaid period the petitioner as Investigating Officer did not even record the statement of the victim of the crime, neither did he correctly inspect the place of occurrence and he rather exhibited the place of occurrence in his own manner. It was also found that the medical examination of the victim was not got conducted in the government hospital; neither while submitting his report under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure did the petitioner indicate as to whether the offence under Sections 307/354 -ka I.P.C. was found established against the accused or not.

It was also noted by the Appointing Authority that the matter was ultimately inquired into by the Crime Branch, C.I.D., Lucknow wherein the petitioner was found to be guilty and accordingly a recommendation was made for instituting departmental proceeding against the petitioner under Rule 14(2) of Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules 1991'). Thereafter the proceedings under Rule 14(2) of the Rules 1991 were instituted against the petitioner and a show cause notice dated 07.08.2015 was served upon him which was received by the petitioner on 11.08.2018 who submitted his reply to the same on 21.08.2018. On the basis of the show cause notice and the reply submitted by the petitioner, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi passed the order of punishment of censuring the petitioner, on 21.09.2018. The said order of punishment was appealed against by the petitioner, however, the Appellate Authority vide his order dated 25.03.2019 dismissed the same.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi while passing the punishment order did not consider the reply submitted by the petitioner and has merely recorded that the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not found satisfactory. However, when we examine the order dated 21.09.2018, passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi, what we find is that the extract of the reply submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice has been noticed and noted by the Senior Superintendent of Police. Thereafter reasons have also been assigned as to why he did not find the explanation submitted by the petitioner to be satisfactory. The reasons assigned by the Senior Superintendent of Police while passing the order of punishment of censure is that the explanation submitted by the petitioner is misleading and is far from truth for the reason that though the accused had died, however, the petitioner instead of inspecting the place of occurrence showed the place of occurrence in his own way. The Senior Superintendent of Police has also recorded in his order dated 21.09.2018 another reason for not accepting the explanation offered by the petitioner that the petitioner did not get the victim of the crime medically examined in the government hospital neither did he, while submitting his report under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure before the court concerned, stated as to whether the offence under Sections 307/354-ka of I.P.C. was established against the accused. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi has also stated in his order that the petitioner furnished the final closure report to the court concerned without considering the aforesaid facts and without examining the facts which were either gathered by him or ought to have been gathered by him.

Accordingly, it is not a case where the order of punishment is non-speaking and does not disclose any reason. The Senior Superintendent of Police has explicitly assigned the reasons for not accepting the explanation furnished by the petitioner to the show cause notice.

So far as the judgment in the case of Constable Sandeep Singh (supra) is concerned, the principle enunciated therein cannot be disputed and there cannot be any quarrel that any order of punishment has to be informed of reasons. However, the ratio laid down by this Court in the said case does not have any application in the facts of the present case for the simple reason that on a perusal of the order passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, it is found that he has assigned adequate reasons for not accepting the explanation offered by the petitioner.

The learned Tribunal has, thus, considered all the aspects of the matter and has arrived at a conclusion that the departmental proceedings against the petitioner was conducted and concluded strictly in accordance with the provisions contained in Rule 14(2) of the Rules 1991.

For the reasons aforesaid, we are not inclined to interfere in the order of the Tribunal and, thus, the writ petition is hereby dismissed.

However, there shall be no order as to costs.

Order Date :- 12.4.2023

Anand Sri./-