Allahabad High Court
Chakra Dhari Ojha P.No. 840640871 ... vs State Public Services Tribunal Thru ... on 24 May, 2024
Author: Rajan Roy
Bench: Rajan Roy
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:39630-DB
Court No. - 2
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18154 of 2018
Petitioner :- Chakra Dhari Ojha P.No. 840640871 Inspector C.P.
Respondent :- State Public Services Tribunal Thru Chairma And 4 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dwijendra Nath Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
2. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has sought the following relief:-
"(i) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned judgments and order dated 25.05.2018 and 16.01.2018 passed by Learned Tribunal in review petition no. 16 of 2018 and reference Petition No. 06 of 2017; Chakra Dhari Ojha Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. which contained as Annexure no. 1 ans 2 respectively as well as punishment, appellate and revisional orders dated 02.09.2015, 04.03.2016 abd 29.06.2016 which contained as Sub-Annexure No. A-1, A-2 and A-3 respectively of the Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition passed by the respondent no. 5, 4 and 3 respectively being unjust, bad and illegal in the eyes of law."
3. No counter affidavit has been filed as yet.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records what comes out is that the petitioner was required to undergo Paedogogy course at A.T.C., Sitapur w.e.f. 01.12.2014 but he did not accept orders for going to the said training rather he went on leave, illegally. Proceedings were drawn under Rule 14(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. A show cause notice was issued to him to which he submitted his reply which was not found satisfactorily and punishment of censure was awarded to him on 02.09.2015. Against which he preferred an appeal which was rejected and thereafter, he preferred a revision which was also rejected. Ultimately, he filed a Claim Petition. Initially, in the Claim Petition an interim order was passed in 2018 itself. Based on the same he was considered for promotion and granted such promotion. Ultimately, the claim petition No. 06 of 2017 came to be dismissed on 16.01.2018. A review petition bearing No. 16 of 2018 was filed which was also dismissed on 25.05.2018.
5. Challenging the said orders this writ petition was filed and an interim order was passed on 15.06.2018 in the following terms:-
"Heard.
Let counter affidavit be filed within six weeks.
Until further orders, the petitioner shall not be adversely affected by the impugned judgment so far as the promotion on the post of Inspector is concerned."
6. The effect of the aforesaid interim order was that promotion on the post of Inspector remained unaffected and he continued on the said post. Now, he has only about 2 or 3 months left for his retirement.
7. As regards the merits of the matter is concerned, the record reveals that initial appointment of the petitioner was on the post of Constable on 01.10.1984. He was promoted as Head Constable on 04.08.1992. Thereafter, he was promoted as Sub-Inspector of Civil Police in 2007 and underwent requisite training/ course in this regard. Thereafter, he was posted at Jaunpur. In 2004 while he was posted at Varanasi at P.S. Chowk he was required to undergo the training as mentioned hereinabove at A.T.C., Sitapur w.e.f. 01.12.2014 and for this purpose he also underwent medical examination, however, he became ill and proceeded on rest on 29.11.2014 without seeking any permission. On 29.11.2014 a preliminary inquiry was instituted wherein it was found that he had acted in violation of the orders issued by the opposite parties for undergoing training and had displayed dereliction of his duties. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued on 17.10.2015, which, as already stated, he replied which ultimately was not found satisfactory.
8. The Tribunal while dismissing the Claim Petition has opined that procedure required to be followed for imposing punishment of censure, has been followed, however, the contention of the petitioner's counsel is that during entire service career the petitioner has never been visited with any punishment and it was only under compelling circumstances that he left his station on account of his illness and could not undergo the training at A.T.C., Sitapur, but, subsequently, when he was again ordered to undergo said training he has undergone it, a fact which is not disputed by the other side. It is also his case that in fact, a formal order was never served upon him for undergoing the aforesaid training w.e.f. 01.12.2014, however, learned counsel for the State says that in the first line of his reply it is mentioned that he had knowledge about the same and had even undergone the medical examination to which the learned counsel for the petitioner says that he fell ill.
9. It is also not the case of the opposite parties that while working as Inspector he has been visited any other punishment or his conduct of work has been unsatisfactory.
10. Considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case, especially, looking into fact that the petitioner has never been visited with any punishment and has already been promoted to the post of Inspector way back on 28.02.2018 and now, only 2 or 3 months remain for his retirement, considering the facts of the case and explanation offered, we are of the opinion that this is not a case where a censure should be allowed to operate at the fag end of his service. We, accordingly, set-aside the judgment of the Tribunal as also the order of punishment dated 16.01.2018 as also the Appellate and Revisional orders.
11. The writ petition is allowed.
.
(Om Prakash Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)
Order Date :- 24.5.2024
R.K.P.
