Upendra Singh vs State Public Services Tribunal ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 7154 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

Court No. - 2
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14706 of 2019
 

 
Petitioner :- Upendra Singh
 
Respondent :- State Public Services Tribunal Lucknow Thru. Chairman And Ors
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Om Prakash Misra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.

Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.

1. Heard Shri Om Prakash Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State Counsel representing the State-respondents.

2. Our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been invoked in this petition challenging the order dated 10.08.2018 passed by U.P. State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow whereby Claim Petition No.350 of 2017 preferred by the petitioner against the punishment order of censure dated 03.11.2016 and the appellate order dated 09.01.2017, has been dismissed.

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Tribunal has not appropriately considered the issues involved in this matter inasmuch as that the disciplinary authority while passing the impugned order of punishment of censure, dated 03.11.2016 has not considered the material available on record of the disciplinary proceedings and further that the said order is completely a non-speaking order. His further submission is that report based on the fact finding enquiry conducted against the petitioner was not taken into account by the disciplinary authority while passing the order of censure dated 03.11.2016 and that even in further investigation ordered under section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. the second investigating officer did not find any incriminating material so as to charge-sheet two named accused persons, who were not included in the charge-sheet while the petitioner submitted the charge-sheet after completion of investigation of the reported crime. In view of the aforesaid, the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that the impugned order awarding the punishment of censure as also the appellate order are not sustainable.

4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel representing the State-respondents has submitted that the learned Tribunal has taken into account all the relevant aspects of the matter and has returned a finding that the procedure as prescribed in Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1991 (herein after referred to as 'Rules 1991') has been followed and as such the petition lacks merit which is liable to be dismissed.

5. We have considered the respective submissions made by the learned counsel representing the respective parties and have also perused the documents available before us on this special appeal.

6. The petitioner was posted as Sub Inspector and Station House Officer, Police Station-Shergarh, District-Bareilly and while posted at the said police station he was entrusted with investigation of Case Crime No.53 of 2016, under sections 147, 148, 302 and 504 of I.P.C. wherein he, after conclusion of the investigation, submitted a charge-sheet, however while submitting the charge-sheet in the Court two named accused, namely, Jaheer Khan and Faroz Khan were not included as the accused.

7. Noticing the aforesaid alleged illegality and misconduct, a fact finding enquiry was conducted against the petitioner by the Circle Officer, who submitted his report on 17.06.2016 to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bareilly, wherein he opined that the officers concerned including the petitioner did not commit any laxity and dereliction in discharge of their duties and as a matter of fact, the petitioner and another police officer had done whatever was required of them.

8. It appears that the Deputy Inspector General of Police even after submission of the fact finding enquiry wherein nothing adverse material against the petitioner was found, issued a show cause notice dated 06.07.2016 under Rule 14(2) of the Rules 1991 whereby the petitioner was required to submit his explanation as to why a censure may not be recorded in his character roll in terms of the provisions contained rule 4(1)(b) read with rule 14 of the Rules 1991. The charge as can be deciphered from the aforesaid show cause notice dated 06.07.2016 related to the alleged dereliction of duty by the petitioner in conducting the investigation of aforementioned Case Crime No.53 of 2016, Police Station-Shergarh, District-Bareilly. The petitioner, however, did not submit any explanation and during the pendency of the proceedings initiated against him for minor penalty by issuing show cause notice dated 06.07.2016 the petitioner demanded certain documents, namely, report of the preliminary enquiry conducted by the Circle Officer, SR file of Case Crime No.53 of 2016 and the case diary related to further investigation conducted by the second Investigation Officer, namely, Shiv Raj Singh, Station House Officer, Police Station-Shergarh, District-Bareilly. As per the recital made in the order dated 03.11.2016 whereby the petitioner was awarded the penalty of censure, he was provided with the copy of the preliminary enquiry report , however, no other documents were provided to him. The Deputy Inspector General of Police on consideration of the matter which was placed before him, without adverting to the facts and material as also the evidence, passed the order dated 03.11.2016 censuring the petitioner and ordered for recording the censure entry in his character roll.

9. Against the order of punishment of censure dated 03.11.2016 the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal before the appellate authority which too was dismissed by the Inspector General of Police, Bareilly Zone Bareilly by means of the order dated 09.01.2017. It is these two orders, namely, the order of punishment of censure dated 03.11.2016 and the order passed by the appellate authority dated 09.01.2017 which were challenged by the petitioner by instituting the proceedings of Claim Petition No.350 of 2017 before the U.P. State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow and the Tribunal by means of the order under challenge herein before us, has dismissed the said claim petition.

10. The allegation against the petitioner related to alleged laxity and dereliction in duty in conducting the investigation of a criminal case. Specific imputation against the petitioner was that he did not conduct the investigation appropriately and despite there being enough incriminating material available, he deliberately did not include Jaheer Khan and Faroz Khan, the two named accused persons in the charge sheet. However, what we notice is that the initiation of disciplinary proceedings or award of minor penalty had preceded in this case by a preliminary inquiry which was conducted by the Circle Officer concerned who in his report has clearly and unambiguously stated that the petitioner and other police officers had done whatever was expected of them while conducting the investigation of the crime in question and that nothing adverse against the petitioner was found. It is also to be noticed that even after further investigation conducted by the newly appointed Investigation Officer, no incriminating material was found against the two named accused persons, namely, Jaheer Khan and Faroz Khan pointing out their involvement in the reported crime which is apparent from the extract of the case diary dated 22.07.2016.

11. In the light of the aforementioned facts, when we examine the order of punishment dated 03.11.2016 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bareli what we find is that he has not discussed as to how and on what basis the allegation against the petitioner has been found to be proved by him. He does not even discuss any evidence or material or any document which may be available on record of the disciplinary proceedings. After mentioning the extract of charge sheet which contains the imputation of the charge against the petitioner the disciplinary authority simply makes a mention about the prayer made by the petitioner whereby he demanded certain documents and thereafter he recorded that the preliminary inquiry report was furnished to the petitioner and further proceeded to observe that the petitioner did not submit his reply to the show cause notice.

12. After making aforesaid observations, the disciplinary authority i.e. the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bareilly concludes and passed the order of recording a censure against the petitioner in his character roll. The order passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, dated 03.11.2016 is completely a non-speaking order.

13. It is now well settled that even while passing the administrative order, the authorities are expected to give reasons. The administrative decisions are also to be informed of reasons. The disciplinary proceeding are in the nature of quasi judicial proceedings which require the disciplinary authority to give reasons and consider the relevant record and material available before him while taking final decision in the matter.

14. Even otherwise, we are of the opinion that once the Circle Officer in his preliminary inquiry did not find any adverse material against the petitioner and further that in further investigation conducted, the Investigating Officer did not find any incriminating material against two named accused persons, namely, Jaheer Khan and Faroz Khan, any person of common prudence would not have arrived at the conclusion which has been arrived at by the Deputy Inspector General of Police while passing the order of punishment, dated 03.11.2016.

15. Unfortunately, the appellate authority while considering the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of punishment of censure has also not addressed the issues raised by him in the appeal and it appears from a perusal of the said appellate order dated 09.01.2017 that he has passed the order on appeal in a cursory manner.

16. Learned Tribunal while passing the impugned order dated 10.08.2018 has also clearly ignored the aforesaid aspects of the matter which have material bearing on the issue involved in this case. The Tribunal has only observed that the order of punishment and appellate order have been passed as per the procedure prescribed which do not warrant any interference in the case.

17. It is true that while judicially scrutinizing the orders of punishment passed by the authority concerned, this Court is not expected to go into the factual aspects of the matter, however, the Court is not immune to look into the relevant facts as narrated above in this case.

18. As already observed above, the Circle Officer in the fact finding inquiry did not find any adverse material against the petitioner; rather he opined in his report that the petitioner as also the other police officers had conducted themselves in the manner which was expected of them. The fact that the second Inquiry Officer while conducting further investigation also did not find any incriminating material so as to file a charge sheet against two named accused persons is also relevant. These facts are relevant which appear to have escaped the attention of the disciplinary authority, appellate authority as also that of the Tribunal.

19. For the reasons given above, in our opinion, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

20. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the judgment and order dated 10.08.2018 passed by U. P. State Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow in Claim Petition No.350 of 2017 is hereby quashed. The order of punishment of censure dated 03.11.2016 and the appellate order dated 09.01.2017 are also hereby quashed.

21. Consequences to follow.

22. However, there will be no order as to costs.

 
Order Date :- 13.3.2023
 
akhilesh/
 

 
[Om Prakash Shukla, J.]    [D. K. Upadhyaya, J.]