Allahabad High Court
Shyam Babu vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief/ ... on 2 February, 2023
Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Court No. - 1
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 988 of 2023
Petitioner :- Shyam Babu
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief/ Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. U.P. Lko. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravi Pratap Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shikhar Anand
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.
(1) The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, Shyam Babu, challenging the judgment and order dated 14.10.2022 passed by the State Public Service Tribunal, U.P., Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as ''the Tribunal') in Claim Petition No. 1396 of 2019 : Shyam Babu Vs. State of U.P. and others, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the said claim petition preferred against awarding of censure entry. The petitioner has also challenged the order awarding censure entry dated 24.06.2019 passed by the respondent no.3 and the appellate order dated 30.07.2019.
(2) Heard Shri Ravi Pratap Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Umesh Chandra, learned Standing Counsel for the State/respondents no.1 to 3, Shri Shikhar Anand, learned Counsel for the respondent No.4/Tribunal and perused the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal as well as material brought on record.
(3) A departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner, who was Inspector in Civil Police, for having committed the negligence, indolence and arbitrariness in conducting the investigation of Case Crime No. 221 of 2018, under Section 302, 328 I.P.C. In the preliminary inquiry, the Inquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of the charge that the petitioner, while discharging duties as Investigating Officer of the aforesaid case, had forwarded the final report to the Circle Officer without obtaining the viscera report. On receipt of the aforesaid report, the Disciplinary Authority had issued a show cause notice dated 02.04.2019 to the petitioner. In response, the petitioner had submitted his reply dated 30.04.2019, denying the allegations levelled against him. The Disciplinary Authority, after going through the inquiry report, reply to the show cause notice given by the petitioner and other material available with him, opined that as the petitioner has discharged his duties with negligence, indolence and arbitrariness and as such, by order dated 24.06.2019, censure entry was awarded to the petitioner.
(4) Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order awarding censure entry, the petitioner had an appeal, which was rejected by the order dated 24.06.2019. The aforesaid order awarding censure entry dated 24.06.2019 as well as appellate order dated 24.06.2019 was the subject matter of claim petition no. 1396 of 2019. By judgment and order dated 14.10.2022, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition, which is impugned in the instant writ petition.
(5) Submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Tribunal has failed to properly consider that the impugned punishment order could not have been awarded to the petitioner as the petitioner has not committed any negligence while discharging his duties. According to him, while awarding the impugned punishment, the petitioner was not afforded opportunity of hearing and. as such, the punishment of censure entry was bad and is liable to be quashed.
(6) Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State, on the other hand, submits that due procedure was adopted while awarding the punishment of censure to the petitioner viz. the petitioner was issued a show cause notice calling upon him to submit his explanation and after considering the explanation/reply submitted by the petitioner to the said show cause notice, the competent authority has awarded the punishment of censure entry to the petitioner. His submission is that no opportunity of hearing is required for awarding a minor punishment.
(7) Learned Standing Counsel has further submitted that the competent authority, while awarding the punishment to the petitioner, has passed a reasoned and speaking order, where the petitioner has been found guilty of the alleged negligence and after coming to the conclusion that the petitioner has been found guilty of the said negligence, the competent authority has awarded the punishment, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not guilty of the alleged negligence.
(8) We have examined the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the records.
(9) The learned Tribunal, while deciding the claim petition filed by the petitioner, has recorded its findings on the basis of cogent material on record that the petitioner was afforded due opportunity before awarding of the impugned punishment and he was found guilty of the alleged negligence in discharging the duties as he while discharging as Investigating Officer of a criminal case had forwarded the final report without obtaining viscera report from the concerned authority. The order dated 24.06.2019 in terms of which the punishment has been awarded censure entry, does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. The petitioner had, thereafter, preferred appeal, which too was dismissed vide order dated 30.07.2019. The learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition vide impugned order dated 14.10.2022.
(10) So far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that he was not afforded opportunity of hearing before awarding the impugned punishment is concerned, suffice is to note that for awarding a minor punishment under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as ''Rules, 1991'), the police officer of subordinate rank shall be informed of the substance of the imputations against him and called upon him to submit his explanation within a reasonable time. The disciplinary authority shall after considering the said explanation, if any, and the relevant records, pass such orders as he considers proper and where a penalty is imposed, reason thereof shall be given, the order shall be communicated to the concerned Government servant.
(11) From perusal of the impugned punishment order, it is very much clear that the procedure for awarding minor punishment was followed while awarding the impugned punishment to the petitioner. Therefore, we are of the considered view that no opportunity of oral hearing was required to be given to the petitioner while awarding the punishment of censure to the petitioner. The petitioner had been afforded reasonable opportunity of making representation against the action proposed to be taken as per the procedure prescribed under Rule 14 of the Rules, 1991.
(12) For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs under the facts and circumstances of the case.
(Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 2.2.2023
Ajit/-
