Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief ... vs Anil Kumar Singh And Another on 24 February, 2023
Bench: Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Subhash Vidyarthi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 2
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1753 of 2023
Petitioner :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Govt. Of U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others
Respondent :- Anil Kumar Singh And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
1. Heard Sri V. P. Nag, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioners-State of U.P. and perused the records.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the State of U.P. challenging the judgment and order dated 11.10.2022, passed by U.P. State Public Services Tribunal allowing Claim Petition No.1075 of 2018. The claim petition was filed by respondent no.1 challenging an order dated 23.09.2017, passed by Superintendent of Police, Barabanki imposing a punishment of censure entry upon him.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent no.1 was appointed as a Constable in the U. P. Police on 21.11.1992 and in the year 2016 he was promoted to the post of Head Constable.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Barabanki got a preliminary enquiry conducted by the Circile Officer, City, Barabanki who submitted a report on 11.08.2011 in respect of the charge that a video telecasted on a news channel prima facie indicated illegal recovery by persons manning a PRV including the respondent no.1. The respondent no.1 had stated that while he was sitting in the PRV, vehicle along with Head Constable Shiv Bahadur and Driver Ram Dev Yadav, the driver of a pick up vehicle enquired about the route by making gestures with his hand after taking the same out of the vehicle. The driver of the PRV vehicle told him the route by indicating the same with his hand. He submitted that the media wrongly depicted this incident and the allegations were false. The other persons present in the PRV also gave similar averments denying the charge.
5. Apart from the statement of the three persons present in the PRV, all of whom had denied the allegation, no other evidence was collected in support of the allegation during the preliminary enquiry. The Enquiry Officer reported that the transaction of money could not be established in the incident but the manner in which the driver of PRV vehicle took his hand out of the vehicle was as is normally done for taking or giving something. From the aforesaid act, the image of the police department was damaged.
6. On 24.08.2017, the Superintendent of Police gave a notice asking the respondent no.1 to show cause as to why a censure entry be not awarded to him for the aforesaid act.
7. The respondent no.1 gave a reply denying the charges and he categorically stated that the driver of the pick-up vehicle had asked the way to Kursi and the driver of the PRV vehicle had indicated the way by making gestures with his hand and the allegation levelled against him was absolutely false.
8. On 23.09.2017, the Superintendent of Police, Barabanki passed an order stating that the explanation given by the respondent no.1 was misleading and baseless and he punished respondent no.1 with censure entry.
9. The respondent no.1 filed an appeal against the punishment order which was rejected by means of an order dated 22.02.2018, passed by Deputy Inspector General of Police, Faizabad Zone, Faizabad.
10. The respondent no.1 challenged the punishment order and the appellate order by filing Claim Petition No.1075 of 2018 and the learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition by means of an order dated 11.10.2022 holding that there was absolutely no evidence to support the charges. The learned Tribunal also held that the copies of relevant documents were not provided to the respondent no.1 along with the show cause notice.
11. Sri V. P. Nag, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners-State of U.P. has submitted that the learned Tribunal has re-appreciated the evidence and has thereby substituted its own finding with the finding of the Enquiry Officer, which is beyond the scope of judicial review. He has submitted that the learned Tribunal ought to have remanded the matter to the disciplinary authority for holding an enquiry afresh.
12. We have considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by learned Standing Counsel and have also perused the material placed before us on this writ petition.
13. It is settled law that a person can be punished only in case charges against him are proved by relevant and cogent evidence and no person can be punished merely because he failed to prove his innocence. It is also well settled that no person can be punished on the basis of mere suspicion howsoever strong the suspicion may be.
14. In the present case, the preliminary enquiry report takes note of the statements given by all the three persons present in the PRV and all of them had denied from the charges. The Enquiry Officer has stated that giving and taking of the money could not be established. However, the Enquiry Officer held that the manner in which the driver of the PRV vehicle took his hand out of the vehicle is normally done for giving and taking something and by this act, the image of the police department was damaged. The aforesaid conclusion has been drawn on the basis of a suspicion and assumption only and it is not based on any evidence. The findings reached without any evidence is perverse and the learned Tribunal acted well within its authority in setting aside such a finding. Moreover, it was the driver of the PRV vehicle who had taken his hand out of the vehicle and there was absolutely no allegation of any act of commission or omission having been committed by the respondent no.1.
15. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error or illegality in holding that there was no evidence to prove the guilt of the respondent no.1.
16. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we are of the view that the order 11.10.2022, passed by learned Tribunal in Claim Petition No.1075 of 2018 needs no interference by this Court. The writ petition lacks merit and, the same is accordingly, dismissed.
(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) (D.K. Upadhyaya, J.)
Order Date :- 24.2.2023
Ram.
