Harsingh Pal vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin Secy/ Addl ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3615 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 1
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1100 of 2023
 
Petitioner :- Harsingh Pal
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin Secy/ Addl Chief Secy Home U.P. Civil Sectt Lko And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Singh,Anand Singh Pawar
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shikhar Anand
 
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

(1) Heard Shri Anand Singh Pawar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Indrajeet Shukla, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondent nos.1 and 3 and Shri Shikhar Anand, learned counsel for respondent no.2.

(2) By means of the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 11.08.2021 passed by the U.P. State Public Service Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), whereby the Claim Petition filed by the petitioner, challenging the order dated 03.04.2020 passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Badaun imposing a minor punishment of Censure Entry upon the petitioner, was dismissed.

(3) Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the petitioner, who is a Sub-Inspector in Civil Police, was punished with a Censure Entry by means of an order dated 03.08.2017 to the effect that when the petitioner was posted in Police Station, Badaun during the year 2016-17, he was entrusted with the investigation of the Case No.445 of 2016 registered on 25.09.2016 under Section 363 I.P.C. One of the accused persons, Geetam was arrested on 30.01.2017 and a charge sheet was submitted against him on 17.04.2017. The petitioner did not make any meaningful attempts for arresting the other accused persons even after expiry of a period of nine months since lodging of the F.I.R., although the Circle Officer kept on sending reminders for arresting the other accused persons and for collecting evidence. The petitioner did not make any meaningful attempts for arresting the accused persons and for disposal of the matter in accordance with law and the aforesaid act of the petitioner is indicative of gross negligence, arbitrariness, indifference and indiscipline in performance of his duties, which was condemned severely.

(4) An appeal filed by the petitioner against the punishment order was rejected by means of an order dated 21.12.2017. The petitioner filed Claim Petition No.811 of 2019 before the Tribunal and by means of a judgment and order dated 11.12.2019, the Tribunal set aside the punishment order and the appellate order and remanded the order of the Disciplinary Authority with a direction to pass a reasoned and speaking order after taking into consideration the points of defense raised by the petitioner in his explanation dated 17.07.2017 submitted by him in response to the show cause notice dated 27.06.2017. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority, i.e., Senior Superintendent of Police, Badaun passed an order dated 03.04.2020 dealing with the points raised by the petitioner.

(5) The first point raised by the petitioner was non-providing of a copy of the preliminary enquiry report. The Disciplinary Authority held that the petitioner was allowed to inspect the record, but he did not demand a copy of the enquiry report or any other document available on record.

(6) Regarding the second point raised by the petitioner that the Enquiry Officer did not record the statement of the then Station House Officer, the Disciplinary Authority held that the informant appeared before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bareilly zone on 25.04.2017 and informed that four named accused persons kidnapped his daughter aged about 13 years on 25.09.2016 and they committed gang rape of his daughter; that police personnel of the Police Station were acting in collusion with the accused persons and were deliberately not arresting the accused persons. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bareilly got a preliminary enquiry conducted by the Circle Officer. The statement of the first Investigating Officer and of another Sub-Inspector were recorded during preliminary enquiry. The allegation against the petitioner was found established in the preliminary enquiry even without recording the statement of the Station House Officer. Therefore, the necessity of recording the statement of the Station House Officer was not felt. It came to light during the preliminary enquiry that the petitioner was entrusted with the investigation of the matter on 26.12.2016. He had arrested one of the accused persons, Geetam on 30.01.2017 and had forwarded the charge sheet against him on 17.04.2017. Investigation against the other accused persons Manakchand and Raghuraj continued and since 26.12.2016 till completion of preliminary enquiry on 26.03.2017, the petitioner did not make any meaningful attempts for arresting the accused persons Manakchand and Raghuraj for six months, although the Circle Officer had continuously sent reminders in this regard.

(7) The petitioner had raised another point that no documentary evidence was available in support of the allegation levelled against him and as per law laid down by the Supreme Court, no person can be punished merely on the basis of suspicion irrespective of the significance of the charges. Punishment can only be based on evidence available on record.

(8) The Disciplinary Authority held that in the preliminary enquiry the charges levelled against the petitioner were found to be fully established and, therefore, it cannot be said that the punishment was imposed merely on the basis of suspicion. Accordingly, the petitioner was punished with a Censure Entry.

(9) The petitioner assailed the order dated 30.04.2020 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Badaun by filing Claim Petition No.437 of 2020 before the Tribunal and the Tribunal held that the departmental proceedings would not vitiate for the mere reason for non-providing of the enquiry report, unless the charged employee establishes that non-providing of copy of the preliminary enquiry report has caused any prejudice to his rights. The petitioner did not state anything to show that his rights were prejudicially effected by non-providing of a copy of the enquiry report. The Tribunal further held that the order dated 03.04.2020 has been passed after due consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner. The order is reasoned and speaking and no legal or procedural error has been committed while passing the order.

(10) We have considered the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has been punished with a minor punishment of a Censure Entry, for which a detailed enquiry is not required. In the preliminary enquiry, statements of several persons were recorded and guilt of the petitioner was found fully established. The petitioner was given a show cause notice and he was allowed to inspect the record of the disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner submitted his explanation without demanding a copy of the enquiry report or any other document. He submitted his reply raising various points in his defense and all the points have been considered by the Disciplinary Authority and thereafter he has passed a reasoned and speaking order punishing the petitioner with a Censure Entry.

(11) The Tribunal has rightly held that when the petitioner has not stated that any prejudice was caused to him by non-supply of the copy of the preliminary enquiry report, a mere non-supply of preliminary enquiry report would not vitiate the disciplinary proceedings.

(12) In view of the aforesaid discussions, we do not find any illegality in the judgment and order dated 11.08.2021 passed by the Tribunal.

(13) The petition lacks merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)

Order Date :- 6.2.2023

Arnima