Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home. Deptt. ... vs Amar Nath Tewari And Another on 23 May, 2024
Author: Rajan Roy
Bench: Rajan Roy
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:39120-DB
Court No. - 2
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1232 of 2018
Petitioner :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home. Deptt. And Others
Respondent :- Amar Nath Tewari And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Standing Counsel
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashutosh Kumar Shukla,Avinash Chandra,Shiv Nath Goswami
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.
1. Heard Shri Nishant Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-petitioner an Shri Ashutosh Kumar Shukla, learned Counsel for respondent no.1.
2. By means of this petition the petitioner-State has challenged the judgment and order dated 10.03.2017 passed in Claim Petition No.1518 of 2002. The Tribunal has allowed the claim petition of the respondent and quashed the order of punishment dated 19.07.1999 as also the appellate order and another order relating to the period of suspension.
3. Contention of the petitioner's Counsel is that no procedural irregularity has been pointed out, but the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing the aforesaid orders acting as an appellate authority which it should not have done.
4. Learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, invites our attention to the enquiry report as also the show cause notice according to which two allegations were levelled against the respondent no.1. One was for misbehaviour and indiscipline with the higher officers and the other was regarding absence from duty for a short period of 18 days. He has submitted that the first allegation was not found to be proved. As regards the second allegation, the respondent no.1 was being harassed by his seniors and he tried his best to submit his joining at the appropriate place but nobody was ready to accept it and as his father was ill, therefore, he had to go to attend to him.
5. We have perused the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has taken note of the fact that the allegation of misbehavior and indiscipline with the officers has not been proved and thereafter the Tribunal has dealt with the other allegation and found that the Enquiry Officer has exceeded his jurisdiction by recommending the punishment for reduction to the lowest stage in the pay scale for three years which was impermissible. We have also perused Schedule I to Rule 14(1) of U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1991, according to which if at all the Enquiry Officer wanted to make any recommendation regarding quantum of punishment he could have done it separately, but not in the enquiry report. There are several decisions on this issue which are being relied by the respondent's Counsel rendered in A.N.D. Silva Vs. The Union of India reported in AIR 1962 SC 1130 and in the case of State of Uttaranchal & others Vs. Kharak Singh, reported in 2008 (8) SCC 236.
6. On consideration of the entire matter, we find that considering the nature of allegation the punishment is apparently too harsh. In our opinion, instead of the aforesaid major punishment looking to the facts of the case, punishment of censure would suffice. Therefore, we modify the judgment of the Tribunal as also the punishment imposed by the orders impugned before it and provide that instead of major punishment, the same would be treated as censure. Consequent to it as we have substituted the major punishment for a minor punishment we also set aside the order of forfeiture of salary for the period of suspension but with liberty to the competent authority to take a fresh decision in this regard, i.e. regarding remaining salary for the period of suspension within two months keeping in mind the observations made hereinabove.
7. Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
(Om Prakash Shukla, J.) (Rajan Roy, J.)
Order Date :- 23.5.2024
Anand Sri./-
