Ravi Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 16683 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Ravi Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 13 May, 2024

Author: Siddhartha Varma

Bench: Siddhartha Varma

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:85116-DB
 
A.F.R.
 
Reserved
 
Court No. - 43 
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18438 of 2022 
 

 
Petitioner :- Ravi Kumar 
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others 
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Atipriya Gautam,Devesh Mishra,Sr. Advocate 
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 
 

 
Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J. 
 

Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.)

1. Heard Sri Ishir Shripat, Advocate holding brief of Ms. Atipriya Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner along with Sri Laxmikant Trigunait and Sri Irfan Ahmad Malik, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner in the connected writ petitions, Sri Sushil Kumar Pal, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, Sri Pramod Kumar Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, Sri Ram Swaroop Umrao, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Girish Chand Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State.

2. Petitioner through this writ petition has assailed the order dated 02.04.2022 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Aligarh whereby punishment of 'censure' has been imposed against him. Petitioner through this writ petition has also challenged the order dated 07.07.2022 whereby appeal filed against punishment order dated 2.04.2022 has been rejected and further order dated 13.09.2022 whereby revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

3. This writ petition was earlier heard by a learned Single Judge of this Court and the order dated 1.12.2022 has been passed whereby learned Single Judge expressed his respectful disagreement with the ratio of a judgement and order dated 03.01.2022 rendered by another learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ-A No. 18299 of 2021 (Pradeep Kumar Asthana Vs. State of U.P. and others) and thereby had framed the issue and requested Hon'ble The Chief Justice of this Court to constitute a larger Bench for deciding the said issue.

4. Learned Single Judge vide his order dated 1.12.2022 passed in Writ-A No. 18438 of 2022 had framed the following issue to be decided by the larger Bench:-

"Whether the power of the appellate authority under the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 are confined to the powers of the judicial review or the appellate authority can exercise the original powers and take a decision which are in the domain of the disciplinary authority while exercising the appellate powers?"

5. Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 1.12.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge, Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court has constituted this Division Bench for deciding the aforesaid issue framed by the learned Single Judge.

6. Brief facts culled out from the writ petition are that the petitioner while posted as Constable in the Traffic Police at District Aligarh in the year 2021 was prima facie found to have committed misconduct therefore, preliminary inquiry was conducted in the matter and thereafter disciplinary authority i.e. the Senior Superintendent of Police, Aligarh issued a show-cause notice under Rule 14(2) of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1991') whereby petitioner was required to submit his reply explaining therein as to why minor punishment of 'censure' as provided under Rule 4 of the Rules of 1991 may not be imposed against him. Petitioner submitted his reply to the show-cause notice on 04.03.2022 wherein he took various grounds to prove his innocence. Ultimately disciplinary authority i.e. the Senior Superintendent of Police, Aligarh passed the order on 02.04.2022 wherein it has been recorded that the explanation given by the petitioner is not satisfactory and he could not give any such fact in his reply which is worth consideration and thereby minor punishment of 'censure' has been imposed against the petitioner.

7. Petitioner challenged the punishment order dated 02.04.2022 by filing appeal under Rule 20 of the Rules of 1991 and he took the ground in appeal that the Disciplinary Authority has not considered his reply to the show-cause notice and the punishment order is absolutely unreasoned and non-speaking. The appellate authority, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Rule 20 of the Rules of 1991 considered the entire evidence and also considered the reply submitted by the petitioner to the show-cause notice dated 16.02.2022 and thereby, has passed speaking and reasoned order on 07.07.2022 whereby he has affirmed the punishment order dated 02.04.2022 passed by the disciplinary authority and has rejected the appeal. Thereafter petitioner challenged the punishment order dated 02.04.2022 and appellate order dated 07.07.2022 by filing revision under Rule 23 of the Rules of 1991 and the said revision has also been dismissed.

8. Petitioner in this writ petition has challenged the punishment order dated 02.04.2022 primarily on the ground that his reply to the show-cause notice dated 16.02.2022 had not been considered at all while imposing the minor punishment of 'censure' against him and once reply submitted by the petitioner has not been considered and reasons to prove the misconduct were not recorded, the punishment order cannot sustain in the eyes of law. Petitioner has challenged the appellate order dated 07.07.2022 primarily on the ground that the appellate authority in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction cannot rectify the errors of the punishment order and thus, the appellate authority while considering the reply submitted by the petitioner to the show-cause notice dated 16.02.2022 and appreciating the evidence on record, had committed a manifest error and therefore the appellate order dated 07.07.2022 is unsustainable in the eyes of law.

9. Petitioner in support of his case relied on the judgement and order dated 03.01.2022 rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ-A No. 18299 of 2021 (Pradeep Kumar Asthana Vs. State of U.P. and Others) wherein it has been held that if in the punishment order, reasons for imposing punishment have not been recorded, then the appellate authority cannot record the reasons on its own and thereby affirm the punishment order passed by the disciplinary authority.

10. Learned Single Judge while hearing this writ petition considered the provisions of Rule 20, 21, 23 and 24 of the Rules of 1991 and thereby came to the conclusion that the appellate authority can adjudicate on the issues which are in the domain of the original disciplinary authority as while considering the appeal, the appellate authority has to examine the entire record available in the file of the disciplinary proceedings and has to consider the case on the basis of material available on record. Thus learned Single Judge has expressed his respectful disagreement with the ratio of the decision rendered in the case of Pradeep Kumar Asthana (Supra) and by framing the issue for adjudication has referred the matter to be decided by a larger Bench.

11. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the disciplinary authority is under an obligation to consider the reply submitted by the delinquent employee to the show-cause notice and thereafter reasons, in support of the mis-conduct, are required to be recorded and only thereafter punishment can be imposed whereas in the matter of petitioner, punishment order dated 02.04.2022 is absolutely silent vis-a-vis the explanation submitted by the petitioner and also it does not contain any reason to prove the misconduct therefore, the punishment order cannot sustain in the eyes of law.

12. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that once the disciplinary authority has not considered the explanation given by the delinquent employee to the show-cause notice and has not given any reason in the punishment order for imposing punishment then the appellate authority in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction cannot consider the reply given by the delinquent employee to the show-cause notice and cannot provide reasons in support of punishment and thereby to affirm the punishment order passed by the disciplinary authority. It has further been argued that the appellate authority has to test the punishment order on its own merits and cannot rectify the mistakes committed by the disciplinary authority while passing the punishment order whereas in the present case punishment order on its face is an unreasoned order and has been passed without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner therefore, the same cannot be cured and affirmed by the appellate authority in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, accordingly the appellate order dated 07.07.2022 cannot sustain in the eyes of law.

13. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in support of his case has relied on the judgements rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India and Others Vs. Mohan Lal Kapoor AIR 1974 SC 87, Raj Kishore Jha Vs. State of Bihar and Others (2003) 11 SCC 519, Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department Works Contract and Lease, Kota Vs. Shukla and brothers (2010) 4 SCC 785 and has argued that the disciplinary authority can pass punishment order only after recording reasons as only from reasons assigned in the order, it can be inferred that the disciplinary authority has applied its mind to reach the conclusion in the form of punishment and once disciplinary authority has failed to record reasons in the punishment order, that defect cannot be cured by the appellate authority while deciding the appeal against the punishment order.

14. Per contra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents has contended that from bare perusal of the provisions made in the Rules of 1991, it is patently manifest that the scope of the appeal is the same as of the original proceedings giving rise to the punishment order and therefore appellate authority can appreciate the entire evidence available in the file of the disciplinary proceedings and thereby can provide reasons to support the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. It has further been contended that in the cases where disciplinary authority has not considered the explanation submitted by the delinquent employee to the show cause notice in detail, the appellate authority while hearing the appeal can consider the said explanation and record reasons to support the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority and thereby can affirm the original punishment order.

15. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has argued that from a bare perusal of the provisions made in the Rules of 1991, it is patently manifest that powers of the appellate authority are not confined only to the powers of judicial review rather the appellate authority can exercise the original powers and can take a decision which is in the domain of the disciplinary authority and in the present case, the appellate authority had considered the reply submitted by the petitioner to the show-cause notice and had also given reasons to support the punishment imposed against the petitioner and thereby had affirmed the punishment order dated 02.04.2022 which is well within the powers of appellate authority.

16. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties. Before proceeding to consider the issue framed by learned Single Judge, it is apt to have a brief look over the provisions made in Rule 20, 21, 23 and 24 of the Rules of 1991, therefore, they are extracted as under:

"Rule 20. Appeals- (1) Every Police Officer, against whom an order of punishment mentioned in sub-clauses (i) to (iii) of Clause (a) and sub-clauses (i) to (iv) of Clause (b) of Rule 4 shall be entitled to prefer an appeal against the order of such punishment to the authority mentioned below:

(a) to the Police Officer who is the immediate jurisdictional superior authority to the Police Officer who passed the order of punishment;

(b) to the Director-General of Police who may either decide the appeal himself or nominate any Additional-Director General for deciding it;

(c) to the State Government against the order passed under Clause (b).

(2) No appeal shall lie against an order inflicting any of the petty punishments enumerated in sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 4.

(3) Every officer desiring to prefer an appeal shall do so separately.

(4) Every appeal, preferred under these rules shall contain all materials, statements, arguments relied on by the Police Officers preferring the appeal, and shall be complete in itself, but shall not contain disrespectful or improper language. Every appeal shall be accompanied by a copy of final order which is the subject of appeal.

(5) Every appeal, whether the appellant is still in service of Government or not, shall be submitted through the Superintendent of Police of the district or in the case of Police Officers not employed in district work through the head of the office to which the appellant belongs or belonged.

(6) An appeal will not be entertained unless it is preferred within three months from the date on which the Police Officer concerned was informed of the order of punishment.

Provided that appellate authority may, at his discretion, for good cause shown extended the said period up to six months.

(7) It the appeal preferred does not comply with the provisions of sub-rule (4) the appellate authority may require the appellant to comply with the provisions of the said sub-rule within one month of the notice of such order to him and if the appellant fails to make the above compliance, the appellate authority may dispose of the appeal in the manner as it deems fit.

(8) The Director-General or an Inspector-General may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, either on his own motion or on request from an appellate authority before whom the appeal is pending transfer the same to any other officer of corresponding rank.

21. Submission of documents with appeal. (1) When the appellate authority admits the appeal and sends for the records all the papers should be submitted which were considered by the officer against whose order the appeal is made including the character roll and service roll of the officer punished.

(2) Copies of orders passed in appeal which are furnished to the Superintendent of Police by the appellate authority shall invariably be accompanied with the departmental punishment file and shall be submitted therewith when the record is called for.

Rule 23-Revision- (1) An officer whose appeal has been rejected by an authority subordinate to the Government is entitled to submit an application for revision to the superior authority next to the authority which has rejected his appeal within three months from the date of rejection of appeal as mentioned below:

(a) to the Police Officer who is the immediate jurisdictional superior authority to the Police Officer who passed the appellate order.;

(b) to the Director-General of Police who may either decide the revision himself or nominate any Additional Director General for deciding it.

(c) to the State Government against the order passed under Clause (b).

On such an application, the powers of revision may be exercised only when, consequent of flagrant irregularity, there appears to have been material injustice or miscarriage of justice.

Provided that the revising authority may on its own motion call for the examine the records of any order passed in appeal against which no revision has been preferred under this rule for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of such order or as to the regularity of such procedure and pass such order with respect thereto as it may think fit;

Provided further that no order under the first proviso shall be made except after giving the person effected a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter.

(2) The procedure prescribed for appeal applies also to application for revision. An application for revision of an order rejecting an appeal shall be accompanied by a copy of the original order as well as the order of appellate authority.

24. Enhancement of punishment - A punishment may be enhanced by -

(a) an appellate authority on appeal; or

(b) any authority superior to the authority to whom an application will lie, in exercise of revisionary powers:

Provided that before enhancing the punishment such authority shall call upon the officer punished, to show cause why his punishment should not be so enhanced, and that an order by such authority so enhancing a punishment shall be deemed to be an original order of punishment."

17. We find that Rule 20(4) of the Rules of 1991 provides that every appeal must contain all materials, statements and arguments relied on by the police office preferring the appeal. Rule 21 of the Rules of 1991 further provides that when the appellate authority admits the appeal and sends for records, all the papers should be submitted which were considered by the officer against whose order appeal is made including character roll and service roll of the officer punished. Thus it is patently manifest that the rule provides that the entire material available in the file of the disciplinary proceedings against the delinquent employee must be placed before the appellate authority for its consideration. We further find that Rule 24 (a) categorically provides that appellate authority has power to enhance the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority therefore, it is manifest that the appellate authority can appreciate the entire evidence and if ultimately reaches to the conclusion that lesser punishment has been awarded by the disciplinary authority, it can enhance the punishment after issuing a show-cause notice and after considering the reply of the delinquent employee. Proviso appended to Rule 24 further provides that the order passed by the appellate authority so enhancing the punishment shall be deemed to be an original order of punishment.

18. Thus from a conjoint reading of the Rule 20, 21 and 24 of the Rules of 1991, we find that the appellate authority has been given complete jurisdiction to re-appeciate the entire evidence available in the file of the disciplinary proceedings and thereafter to nullify, reduce, affirm and enhance the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, This conclusion drawn by us finds support from the provisions made by the legislature in Rule 23(1) which provides remedy of revision and puts restriction that the revisional power may be exercised where in consequence of flagrant irregularity, there appears to have been material injustice or miscarriage of justice.

19. We find that legislature in its wisdom has put conditions/restrictions for the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Rule 23 of the Rules of 1991 whereas there are no such restrictions in respect of the exercise of appellate jurisdiction as contemplated under Rule 20, 21 and 24 of the Rules of 1991. Even otherwise, we find that all along it has been settled proposition of law that in the disciplinary matters once the delinquent employee files an appeal then the appellate authority can re-appreciate the entire evidence available on record and after recording its satisfaction, can nullify, reduce, affirm or enhance the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority.

20. Now we proceed to consider as to whether reasons are required to be recorded while taking decision by the quasi judicial authorities. We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgements including the judgements, relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has categorically held that quasi judicial authorities are required to record reasons to reach out the conclusion in the order but in the matters of disciplinary proceedings against an employee, the appellate authority has the same scope to re-appreciate the evidence on record as the disciplinary authority had, therefore, if the reasons for imposing punishment have not been recorded by the disciplinary authority and ultimately appellate authority while considering the appeal against the punishment order finds that there is sufficient evidence on record to sustain the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority then the appellate authority would have two options i.e. either to remit the matter to the disciplinary authority for passing a fresh order or to pass order imposing the same punishment after considering the reply submitted by the delinquent employee to the show-cause notice and after recording reasons to support the punishment.

21. We also find that it is also a well settled proposition of law through catena of judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that once the appellate authority has power to re-appreciate the entire evidence and entire evidence is available before it, it would not be in the fitness of things to remit the matter to disciplinary authority but it would be appropriate for the appellate authority to re-appreciate evidence available on record and after recording reasons to sustain the order passed by the disciplinary authority.

22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment rendered in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and others, (1995) 6 SCC 749 has categorically held that in the disciplinary matters, the disciplinary authority is the sole judge of the facts and where appeal is presented against the punishment order, the appellate authority has co-extensive power to re-appreciate the evidence and the nature of punishment i.e. appellate authority can re-appreciate the evidence available on record and thereafter on the basis of its own reasons can nullify, reduce, affirm or enhance the punishment imposed against the delinquent employee. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi (supra) are extracted as under:

"12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person

would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case.

13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has coextensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary inquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before Court//Tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel, this Court held at p-728 that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued."

23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its judgment rendered in the case of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Vs. Nemi Chand Nalwaya, (2011) 4 SCC 584 has again considered the difference in the power of judicial review with the courts and the scope of appellate authority in the disciplinary matters and has held that the scope of the judicial review with the courts in the disciplinary matters is very limited whereas the appellate authority while deciding the appeal can re-appreciate the entire evidence available in the file of the disciplinary proceedings and thereafter by recording reasons can nullify, reduce, affirm or enhance the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. The relevant paragraph of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (supra) is extracted as under:

"7. It is now well settled that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record. If the enquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be grounds for interfering with the findings in departmental enquiries. Therefore, courts will not interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental enquiries, except where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The test to find out perversity is to see whether a tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or finding, on the material on record. The courts will however interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters, if principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated or if the order is found to be arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on extraneous considerations. (vide B. C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India, Union of India vs. G. Gunayuthan, Bank of India vs. Degala Suryanarayana and High Court of Judicature at Bombay vs. Shahsi Kant S Patil.)"

24. Now we proceed to consider the provisions made in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in respect of the scope of the appellate jurisdiction. For ready reference, Sections 96 and 107 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are extracted as under:

"96. Appeal from original decree .- (1) Save where otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie from every decree passed by any Court exercising original jurisdiction to the Court authorized to hear appeals from the decisions of such Court

(2) An appeal may lie from an original decree passed ex parte.

(3)No appeal shall lie from a decree passed by the Court with the consent of parties.

(4) No appeal shall lie, except on a question of law, from a decree in any suit of the nature cognizable by Courts of Small Causes, when the amount or value of the subject-matter of the original suit does not exceed [ten thousand rupees.]

x x x x x x x x x x x

107. Powers of appellate Court .- (1) Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, an Appellate Court shall have power-

(a) to determine a case finally;

(b)to remand a case;

(c)to frame issues and refer them for trial;

(d)to take additional evidence or to require such evidence to be taken.

(2) Subject as aforesaid, the Appellate Court shall have the same powers and shall perform as nearly as may be the same duties as are conferred and imposed by the Code on Courts of original jurisdiction in respect of suits instituted therein."

25. We find that Section 107(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides that subject to sub-clause (i), the appellate court shall have the same powers and shall perform as nearly as may be the same duties as are conferred and imposed by the Code on courts of original jurisdiction in respect of suits instituted therein. We are conscious of the fact that provisions made in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are not stricto sensu applicable in the disciplinary matters of the police officers as they are governed by the provisions made in the Rules of 1991 but the texture of appellate jurisdiction and the scope of the appellate authority can easily be understood if the provisions made in the Rules of 1991 are seen in the light of the aforesaid provisions made in the Code of Civil Procedure. We are of the view that the scope of the appellate authority under the Rules of of 1991 is almost identical to that of the scope available with the appellate court in terms of Section 107 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The provisions made in the Rules of 1991 itself provide that the powers of the appellate authority and the powers of the disciplinary authority are co-extensive and the appellate authority possesses jurisdiction to re-appreciate the entire evidence available on record and thereafter by recording reasons can nullify, reduce, affirm or enhance the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority.

26. We are also of the view that by now, it is well settled proposition of law that powers of the appellate authority in the matters of disciplinary proceedings are much wider than the powers of judicial review as the appellate authority is empowered to appreciate entire evidence available on record and thereafter to nullify, reduce, affirm and enhance the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. We find that learned Single Judge while rendering the judgement and order dated 03.01.2022 in Writ-A No. 18299 of 2022, Pradeep Kumar Asthana Vs. State of U.P. and others has not considered the scope of the appellate jurisdiction as provided under the Rules of 1991 and thereby has erroneously held that in the context of penalty awarded, it may never be open to the disciplinary authority to award penalty and leave it open to the appellate and higher authority to consider if there exists any reason to award such penatly.

27. Since the appellate authority enjoys the same power to appreciate the entire evidence available on record and thereafter to record findings in support of the punishment as is available to the disciplinary authority therefore, if the appellate authority finds that reasons are missing in the punishment order but there is enough evidence on record to support the awarded punishment, then definitely the appellate authority after considering the reply submitted by the delinquent employee to the show-cause notice can record reasons and thereby can affirm the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority.

28. In view of the aforesaid reasons, our answer to the issue framed by learned Single Judge is as under:

"The powers of the appellate authority under the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 are not confined only to the powers of judicial review rather the appellate authority in exercise of appellate powers can re-appreciate the entire evidence available on record and take decision akin to the powers available in the domain of the disciplinary authority.

29. Let this writ petition be placed before the learned Single Judge for deciding the matter.

Order Date:-13.5.2024

A. Mandhani/Salim