Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. / ... vs Tejpal Gautam on 13 January, 2023
Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Subhash Vidyarthi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Court No. - 1
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 301 of 2023
Petitioner :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. / Addl. Chief Secy. Home Police Anubhag-I U.P. Lko. And Others
Respondent :- Tejpal Gautam
Counsel for Petitioner :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
1. Heard Mr. Shishir Singh Chauhan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner.
2. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner-State has challenged the judgment and order dated 17.08.2022, passed by State Public Services Tribunal, allowing the Claim Petition No.1307 of 2021 filed by the respondent and setting aside the order of punishment dated 07.07.2021 and appellate order dated 02.01.2019.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that while the petitioner was working as Constable a show cause notice was issued to him on 10.10.2018 alleging that in the year 2016, when the respondent was posted in Traffic Police Lines, Lucknow, he was found involved in making illegal recoveries from the vehicles. A notice in this regard has been given to the respondent to show cause as to why censure entry be not made in his character roll for the year 2018.
4. On 02.01.2019, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow passed a punishment order wherein it is stated that the show cause notice was served upon the respondent on 26.10.2018 and on 25.10.2018, the respondent had submitted an application praying for further time for submitting his reply. As the respondent did not submit a reply, the Senior Superintendent of Police examined the material available on record and he could find any document/ evidence on the basis whereof the respondent could be relieved of the charges and on the aforesaid reasoning the Superintendent of Police passed an order awarding censure entry to the respondent.
5. The appeal filed against the punishment order was dismissed by the Inspector General of Police, Lucknow Zone, Lucknow, by means of an order dated 28.08.2010 and the respondent's representation submitted to the Government was also rejected by means of Office Memorandum dated 07.07.2021.
6. The respondent had challenged the aforesaid order before Public Services Tribunal and the learned Tribunal has allowed the claim petition filed by the respondent holding that the disciplinary authority did not discharge his duty to give reasons for awarding punishment to the petitioner and the punishment order has been passed merely for the reason that the respondent did not submit his reply to the show cause notice.
7. Learned Tribunal has also held that copies of the relevant documents had not been provided to the respondent along with the show cause notice in violation of Circular dated 08.03.2001, issued by the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, which fact was not disputed in the written statement filed in response to the claim petition.
8. We have gone through the order passed by learned Tribunal and heard the submissions advanced by learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
9. The punishment order merely states that the respondent did not submit his reply to the show cause notice and the disciplinary authority could not find any material on the basis whereof the respondent could be exonerated of the charges. The disciplinary authority has not mentioned any material which could establish the guilt of the respondent. The general principle regarding discharge of the burden of proof applies to disciplinary proceedings also and for passing an order of punishment, it is necessary that the charges against the employee be established so as to prove the guilt and an employee cannot be punished merely because he could not prove his innocence.
10. Learned Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner could not point out any such illegality in the order of learned Tribunal, which may warrant interference of this court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As such, we are of the considered view that the judgment and order passed by learned Tribunal does not suffer from any illegality.
11. The writ petition lacks merit and, it is accordingly, dismissed.
.
(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 13.1.2023
Ram.
