Allahabad High Court
Amarnath vs U.P. State Public Service Tribunal ... on 10 October, 2025
Author: Rajan Roy
Bench: Rajan Roy
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:62595-DB
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT - A No. - 9216 of 2025
Amarnath
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
U.P. State Public Service Tribunal Thru. Its Chairman Indira Bhawan Lko. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Prashant Chaurasia
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Shikhar Anand, C.S.C.
RESERVED ON:- 18.08.2025 DELIVERED ON:- 10.10.2025
Court No. - 1
HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.
(PER MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.)
1. Heard Sri Prashant Chaurasia, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2. The captioned writ petition has been filed assailing therein, the judgment and order dated 11.6.2025 passed by the learned State Public Services Tribunal, Indra Bhawan, Lucknow in Claim Petition No. 567 of 2024 (Amar Nath Vs. State of U.P. and other) whereby, the claim petition filed by the petitioner had been dismissed.
3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the Superintendent of Police, Ballia on 7.8.2023 wherein the allegation against the petitioner was that while he was posted in Police Station-Sikandarpur, Ballia, in the year 2023, his behaviour towards other police personnel posted in the Police Station-Sikandarpur was not proper, which created difficulties in smooth functioning of the police station. In the show cause notice, it was further alleged that the Station House Officer, Police Station-Sikandarpur issued an order whereby the petitioner was designated as ?Chunav Munshi? for the work related to elections but he created ruckus and tore the said order. The petitioner submitted his reply to the aforesaid show cause notice dated 7.8.2023 on 23.8.2023.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Ballia considered the show cause notice dated 7.8.2023 and the reply submitted by the petitioner dated 23.8.2023 and thereafter passed the punishment order on 22.11.2023 whereby the minor penalty in the form of fine equivalent to 29 days salary had been imposed against the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the order dated 22.11.2023 by filing statutory appeal but the said appeal had also been dismissed vide order dated 8.2.2024 passed by the Inspector General of Police, Azamgarh Zone, Azamgarh.
5. The petitioner filed Claim Petition No. 567 of 2024 wherein he challenged the aforesaid orders dated 22.11.2023 and 8.2.2024. The reliefs claimed by the petitioner in the claim petition are extracted as under:-
?Reliefs sought:
1) Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the minor punishment order no.da.-90/2023 dated 22.11.2023 passed by the opposite party no.3 (Annexure no.1) and the appellate order dated 08.02.2024 passed by opposite party no. 2 (Annexure No. 2) and allow all consequential service benefits including salary of suspension period (except subsistence allowance) ignoring the aforesaid orders.
(ii) Any other direction or order may also be passed which this Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to issue in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(iii) Award the cost of the Claim petition in favour of the applicant.?
6. The learned Tribunal had dismissed the claim petition vide judgment and order dated 11.6.2025, which is under challenge in this writ petition.
7. Sri Prashant Chaurasia, learned appearing for the petitioner argued that the Superintendent of Police, Ballia, while passing the punishment order dated 22.11.2023, has not considered the reply submitted by the petitioner on 23.8.2023. He further argued that once it is apparent from the face of record that the disciplinary authority without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner had imposed minor penalty on him, the punishment order, on its face, becomes unsustainable. It was also argued on behalf of the petitioner that appellate authority while deciding appeal filed by the petitioner has not considered the grounds taken by him in his appeal.
8. It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that certain police personnel of the Police Station- Sikandrapur have deposed in his favour in the preliminary enquiry but the enquiry officer as well as the disciplinary authority did not consider their statements and straightaway had proceeded to impose minor penalty in the form of fine equivalent to salary of 29 days. It was further argued that it is apparent from the punishment order dated 22.11.2023 that the vital facts have not been considered either by the Enquiry Officer or by the disciplinary authority, as such the punishment order dated 22.11.2023, on its face, is illegal and cannot sustain in the eyes of law.
9. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents argued that it is apparent from the punishment order dated 22.11.2023 itself that the disciplinary authority had considered the reply submitted by the petitioner pursuant to show cause notice dated 7.8.2023. He further argued that in the disciplinary proceedings, the disciplinary authority takes decision on the preponderance of probability and the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority are the best judge of the facts and it is not open either for the learned Tribunal or for this Court to venture in the factual aspects of the matter.
10. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents also argued that so far as the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner that few police personnel posted in the Police Station-Sikandarpur, District- Ballia have deposed in his favour, is concerned, the said argument, on its face, is unsustainable, as from bare perusal of the enquiry report, it is apparent that good number of police personnel posted in the Police Station-Sikandarpur, Ballia have categorically deposed before the Inquiry Officer that behaviour of the petitioner towards the police personnel of the police station concerned was not at all proper and when he was given duty as a ?Chunav Munshi?, he tore the order by which he was designated as ?Chunav Munshi?.
11. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents while concluding his arguments submitted that the petitioner is working in a disciplined force and therefore, he has to maintain his behaviour in the police station concerned in a way so that the smooth functioning of the police station is not put in jeopardy and further the authorities keeping in mind the factual issues of the matter have imposed only a minor penalty on the petitioner. It was further argued that it is apparent from the face of record that the impugned orders dated 22.11.2023 and 8.02.2024 do not suffer from any infirmity or illegality, as such the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed by this Court.
12. We have considered the rival arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and have perused the documents available in the writ petition.
13. We find that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the Superintendent of Police, Ballia on 7.8.2023 wherein charge was levelled against the petitioner that his behaviour with the police personnel posted in the Police Station-Sikandarpur was not proper and further when he was given duty of ?Chunav Munshi? through an order, he tore the said order. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice on 23.8.2023 and thereafter, the Superintendent of Police, Ballia passed the punishment order dated 22.11.2023 whereby, minor penalty in the form of fine equivalent to 29 days salary had been imposed against the petitioner.
14. The procedure for imposing a minor penalty against a police personnel working in the State of U.P. is governed by the rules i.e. U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the ?Rules of 1991?). The Rule 14 (2) of the Rules of 1991 provides that for imposition of minor punishment against a police personnel, he should be given a show cause notice and should be allowed to submit his reply and thereafter, the disciplinary authority after considering his reply can impose minor punishment. For ready reference Rule 14 (2) of the Rules of 1991 is extracted as under:-
?14 (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) punishments in cases referred to in sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 may be imposed after informing the Police Officer in writing of the action proposed to be taken against him and of the imputations of act or omission on which it is proposed to be taken and given him a reasonable opportunity of making such representation as he may wish to make against the proposal.?
15. We find that the disciplinary authority had issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 7.8.2023 and in response thereof, the petitioner had replied on 23.8.2023. The disciplinary authority i.e. Superintendent of Police, Ballia, after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice, had passed a well-reasoned order whereby, the minor punishment in the form of fine equivalent to 29 days salary had been imposed against the petitioner.
16. So far as the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that his reply dated 23.8.2023 has not been considered by the disciplinary authority is concerned, it is not sustainable on its face, as on bare reading of the punishment order dated 22.11.2023 it clearly comes out that the reply submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice had been elaborately considered by the disciplinary authority and only thereafter, minor penalty had been imposed against the petitioner.
17. So far as the second argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that certain police personnel have deposed before the Inquiry Officer in his favour but even then minor penalty had been imposed against him, is concerned, it is noteworthy that in the enquiry report it is mentioned that there are various police personnel who had categorically deposed that the behaviour of the petitioner in the police station concerned was not proper and it created lot of difficulties in the smooth functioning of the police force and further the petitioner had torn the order by which he was given duty of ?Chunav Munshi?. The learned Tribunal in paragraph no. 9 had considered the findings recorded in the preliminary enquiry. For ready reference paragraph no. 9 is extracted as under:-
?9-?? ??????? ??? ??? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?? ???? ??? ????? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ??? ?????????? ?????? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ????? ??????? ????? ?? ????? ????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ?? ??? ??? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ?? ???????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?????????? ???? ????????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ??? ??? ?? ?? ??? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ??????? ??? ???? ?????????? ?? ????????? ?? ???? ??? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ????? ????? ?????, ?????? ????? ??????????, ??????? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ??????? ??? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ??? ?? ?? ???? ???? ????? ?? ????? ??????? ?? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ????????? ?????????? ??? ??????? ???? ???? ?? ??? ?? ?? ??????? ??????? ?? ??? ?????? ??????????? ?? ???????????? ??????? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ????? ??? ??? ?? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ??????? ???? ????????? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ??. ??? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ????? ????? ?????, ?????? ??????? ?????????? ??? ?????? ????? ??? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ?????? ??????????? ?? ??? ??? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ???????? ?? ????? ???? ?????? ?????? ??? ????, ?????? ?????? ????, ?????? ???????? ????, ????? ?????? ???? ????, ????? ?????? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????, ?????? ??? ?????? ??????, ?????? ???? ????, ?????? ???? ????, ?????? ????? ???? ??? ?????????? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ??????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ?????????? ????? ??? ?????? ??????????? ?? ??? ???? ??, ??????? ?? ???? ??? ????? ????"
18. This Court is of the view that in matters of disciplinary proceedings, factual issues lie in the domain of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority and unless it is shown that the findings recorded in the punishment order and the appellate order are perverse, neither the learned Tribunal nor this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can look into the factual issues involved in the matter. Once the disciplinary authority, on the basis of the preponderance of probability, had recorded a finding that various police personnel posted in the Police Station- Sikandrapur, District- Ballia had deposed that the petitioner?s behaviour was not at all proper for the smooth functioning of the police station and he had torn the order by which he was given duty of ?Chunav Munshi?, there is no occasion either for the Tribunal or for this Court to interfere in the said factual issues.
19. We find that the procedure prescribed under the rules for imposition of minor punishment against a police personnel has been followed and there is neither any illegality nor any infirmity in the punishment order dated 22.11.2023 and the appellate order dated 8.2.2024. Accordingly, we do not find any occasion to interfere with the judgment and order dated 11.6.2025 passed by the learned Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 567 of 2024.
20. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition lacks merit and is, hereby, dismissed.
(Manjive Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)
October 10, 2025
Lokesh Kumar
