Allahabad High Court
Smt. Vibha Pandey vs The State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 15 May, 2023
Bench: Saurabh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:104245
AFR
Court No. - 38
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5196 of 2023
Petitioner :- Smt. Vibha Pandey
Respondent :- The State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Kumar Ojha
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.
1. Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Satyendra Kumar Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel.
2. The present petition has been filed seeking the following relief:-
"I. Issue, a writ, or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated 26.10.2022 & 24.06.2022 passed by the Respondent No.2 & 3 respectively, The Additional Director General of Police, Gorakhpur Range, Gorakhpur, District Gorakhpur & The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Gorakhpur Range, Gorakhpur, District Gorakhpur, (Annexure -3 & 5 to the Writ Petition)
II. Issue, a writ, order or direction, in the nature of mandamus, directing the Respondent authorities to delete punishment of withholding the integrity into service records of the Petition and further consider for promotion if any proposed."
3. It is the case of the petitioner that entry of withholding the integrity has been awarded in the Annual Confidential Report of the petitioner by the Reporting Authority vide order dated 20.01.2021 while the petitioner was rendering her services under the capacity of Inspector in Kushi Nagar and the same has been communicated well within time as prescribed under the 1995 Rules1.
4. Being aggrieved with the entry dated 20.01.2021, the petitioner approached the Reviewing Authority i.e. respondent no.3 vide representation dated 22.10.2021 that was beyond the limitation of 45 days as prescribed under the rules, but the same has been duly considered by way of detailed discussion of the grounds as elaborated by the petitioner and dismissed the same vide order dated 24.06.2022.
5. After availing the statutory remedy prescribed under the Rule 4 of the 1995 Rules, the petitioner preferred a detailed revision before Accepting/Competent Authority on dated 16.09.2022.
6. The order dated 20.01.2021 passed by Reporting Officer as well as order dated 24.06.2022 passed by Reviewing Authority has been upheld by the Accepting/Competent Authority i.e. respondent no.2 vide order dated 26.10.2022 by way of rejecting the entire claim as set out by the petitioner for showing her bonafide over the assessment as drawn by the Reporting Authority.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner framed his case on the basis that the punishment which has not been mentioned under the 1991 Rules 2, the same cannot be imposed by any of the authority who is competent under the rules against any employee who is rendering his services in the Department of U.P. Police as a Subordinate Officer. For substantiating his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Narendra Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others3, judgment of a Division Bench of this High Court at Lucknow Bench in Satya Deo Sharma Vs. State of U.P.4 and judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijay Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others5.
8. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the petition by way of elaborating his arguments on the basis that the entry as reported against the petitioner is different to the punishment as mentioned under the 1991 Rules, the punishment as prescribed in the 1991 Rules can only be imposed after adopting the procedure as defined under the statutory provisions specifically mentioned under the 1991 Rules which is applicable in the case of the petitioner but the matter put under challenge by way of filing the instant petition is not the case of punishment, whereas it is the case of entry in the ACR of the petitioner, which has been endorsed by the Reporting Officer after examining the activities, conduct and behaviour of the petitioner in shape of withholding the integrity and assessed the entry of that particular year as bad and communicated the same well within time so that the petitioner may exercise the rights available under the 1995 Rules.
9. Learned Standing Counsel also submitted that there is hardly any ground taken up by the petitioner for challenging the assessment as made by the Reporting Authority, Reviewing Authority as well as Accepting Authority who is the competent authority as defined under the 1995 Rules.
10. By bare perusal of the orders which impugned the present petition along with the judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is crystal clearly proved that the pronouncement of this Court as well by Hon'ble the Apex Court as relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner are entirely on the different footings which is purely the matter which has been denied in the judgment is related to the disciplinary proceedings wherein the punishment has been awarded and the same was not mentioned in the 1991 Rules and the same has been held as illegal.
11. Whereas the matter pertains to the present petition is not at all with regard to any punishment, it is only assessment of conduct, behaviour and activities as carried out by the petitioner during that continuation of the currency period of year for which she has been assessed and reported for withholding the integrity i.e. bad in nature, and as such, there is hardly any bearings of the cases mentioned by learned counsel for the petitioner and the same is having no application in the instant matter.
12. The arguments as raised by learned Standing Counsel seems to be forceful, having agreement with the same, the instant petition is hereby dismissed.
13. However, it is made clear that the petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum of law, if so desires.
Order Date :- 15.5.2023
Vivek Kr.
(Saurabh Srivastava, J.)
