Durgesh Kumar Singh vs State Public Services Tribunal Indira ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 10355 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Durgesh Kumar Singh vs State Public Services Tribunal Indira ... on 10 September, 2025

Author: Rajan Roy

Bench: Rajan Roy

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:54484-DB
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
LUCKNOW 
 
WRIT - A No. - 13632 of 2018   
 
   Durgesh Kumar Singh    
 
  .....Petitioner(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Public Services Tribunal Indira Bhawan Lucknow And Ors.    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)   
 
:   
 
Dileep Kumar Singh Chauha, Om Prakash Misra, Sameer Kalia   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
C.S.C.   
 
     
 

 
 RESERVED ON:- 22.08.2025 DELIVERED ON:- 10.09.2025Court No. - 1
 
   
 
 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.  

HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

(Per Manjive Shukla, J.)

1. Heard Shri Sameer Kalia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents.

2. The captioned writ petition has been filed assailing therein, the judgment and order dated 25.09.2017 passed by the learned State Public Services Tribunal, Indira Bhawan, Lucknow in Claim Petition No. 1619 of 2014; Durgesh Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Others; whereby, the claim petition had been dismissed. The petitioner through the captioned writ petition has also challenged the order dated 27.03.2018 whereby, his petition for review of the judgment and order dated 25.09.2017 had been dismissed. The order of punishment dated 12.09.2013 and the appellate order dated 06.01.2014 have also been challenged by the petitioner in the instant writ petition.

3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 03.08.2013 by the Superintendent of Police, Shravasti in which allegations were leveled against the petitioner that while he was posted as Incharge Chowki in Police Chowki Bhangha Kotwali Bhinga, District - Shravasti in the year 2013, Mrs. Praveen on 15.05.2013 informed him that four youngsters have tried to outrage her modesty and during the said process, she had suffered injuries. The petitioner in spite of having knowledge of the incident on 15.05.2013 itself neither initiated any proceedings against the accused nor he gave information of the said incident to his superior officers. In respect of the incident in question, when Mrs. Praveen approached the Superintendent of Police, Shravasti, then on his directions, a criminal case bearing Case Crime No. 665 of 2013 under Sections 147, 352, 354 (?) I.P.C. was registered in Kotwali Bhinga, District Shravasti. In the show cause notice, it was further alleged that from the conduct of the petitioner, in dealing with a very sensitive matter related with the modesty of a woman, it is apparent that the petitioner kept ideal and and did nothing which shows his negligence towards discharge of his duties. In the show cause notice it was also mentioned that the petitioner may submit his reply, as to why a minor punishment of censure may not be imposed against him. It is note worthy that prior to issuance of show cause notice dated 03.08.2013, a preliminary inquiry was conducted in the matter and a preliminary inquiry report was submitted. The Superintendent of Police, Shravasti along with the show cause notice dated 03.08.2013, also annexed a copy of the preliminary inquiry report.

4. The petitioner in response to the aforesaid show cause notice dated 03.08.2013 submitted his reply on 26.08.2013 wherein, he stated that since the Police Chowki, where he was Incharge at the relevant point of time, was not a reporting Chowki, therefore, on the basis of the complaint given by Mrs. Praveen, the FIR could not be registered, but the petitioner promptly started inquiry in the matter and found that the allegations are false. The petitioner in his reply also stated that the preliminary inquiry conducted in the matter is faulty and in the said inquiry, petitioner's version has not been taken into account that Mrs. Praveen did not come to the Police Chowki personally, rather after about 12 hours of the incident, two local leaders came to the Police Chowki along with complaint of Mrs. Praveen and after receiving the said complaint, petitioner acted promptly but did not find truth in the allegations.

5. After considering the reply submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice dated 03.08.2013, the Superintendent of Police, Shravasti passed an order on 12.09.2013 under Rule 14(2) of the U.P. Police Officers of Sub-ordinate Rank (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1991') and thereby had imposed minor punishment of 'censure' against the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the punishment order dated 12.09.2013 by filing a statutory appeal and that appeal had been dismissed by the Deputy Inspector General Of Police, Devipatan Range, Gonda vide his order dated 06.01.2014.

6. The petitioner filed the Claim Petition No. 1619 of 2014 before the learned State Public Srevices Tribunal, Indira Bhawan, Lucknow challenging therein the punishment order dated 12.09.2013 and the appellate order dated 06.01.2014. The learned Tribunal after considering the material available on record and after hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the claimant had passed the impugned judgment and order dated 25.09.2017 whereby, the claim petition had been dismissed. The petitioner thereafter preferred the Review Petition No. 117 of 2017 seeking review of the aforesaid judgment and order dated 25.09.2017, and the said review petition had also been dismissed by the learned Tribunal vide its order dated 27.03.2018.

7. Shri Sameer Kalia, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that though in the show cause notice dated 03.08.2013 it is mentioned that the preliminary inquiry report has been annexed but in fact the said preliminary inquiry report was not annexed with the show cause notice and has never been served to the petitioner therefore, once the preliminary inquiry report had been relied on in the show cause notice and its copy has not been given to the petitioner, the punishment order dated 12.09.2013 cannot sustain in the eyes of law, as it is well settled proposition of law that if the punishment order had been passed on the strength of a document without supplying it to the government servant, the punishment order stands vitiated.

8. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that Mrs. Praveen never came to the Police Chowki, rather two local leaders on 16.06.2013 came to the Police Chowki with a complaint of Mrs. Praveen in respect of the alleged incident which took place on 15.05.2013 and the petitioner promptly inquired the said complaint and found the allegations made in the complaint to be false but the said version of the petitioner has neither been considered by the Inquiry Officer in the preliminary inquiry nor by the disciplinary authority while passing punishment order. It has also been argued that the Police Chowki, where the petitioner was posted in the capacity of Incharge Police Chowki, was not a reporting Chowki, therefore, on the basis of complaint given on behalf of Mrs. Praveen, the FIR could not have been registered and since, the petitioner in the inquiry found the allegations to be false, therefore, he did not inform about the said incident to the superior officers but the said version of the petitioner has not been considered by the disciplinary authority in its true perspective and in most arbitrary manner, he had imposed minor punishment of 'censure' against the petitioner.

9. Shri Sameer Kalia, learned Counsel for the petitioner has thus concluded his arguments by submitting that it is apparent from the face of record that the petitioner was not at all negligent in discharge of his official duties and his version in respect of the incident along with his reply to the allegations has neither been considered by the disciplinary authority nor by the learned Tribunal while deciding the claim petition, as such, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be allowed by this Court, and further, this Court may set aside the punishment order dated 12.09.2013 and the appellate order dated 06.01.2014.

10. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents has argued that the contention of the petitioner that he was not given copy of the preliminary inquiry report along with the show cause notice dated 03.08.2013, on its face, is incorrect as the petitioner in his reply to the show cause noticed dated 03.08.2013 filed on 26.08.2013 had categorically stated that the preliminary inquiry was faulty as the Inquiry Officer had not considered the version of the petitioner, which categorically shows that the petitioner, while submitting reply to the show cause notice, was fully aware about the contents of the preliminary inquiry report and therefore, it is apparent that the copy of the inquiry report annexed with the show cause notice was duly served on the petitioner. It has further been argued that so far as the argument raised on behalf of the petitioner that Mrs. Praveen never approached to the petitioner in the Police Chowki and two local leaders came with her complaint in the morning of 16.05.2013, is concerned, it is note worthy that in the preliminary inquiry report, the statement of Constable No. 324, Civil Police, Jai Narayan Rai finds mention wherein, he had categorically stated that the petitioner at about 07.00AM on 16.05.2023 handed over a complaint of Mrs. Praveen to him and said that the complaint was given to him by Safi & Arvind in the evening of 15.05.2013 and thereafter, Jai Narayan Rai went to conduct inquiry regarding the incident. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that it is apparent from the statement of Constable Jai Narayan Rai that the petitioner kept the complaint given on behalf of Mrs. Praveen for at least 12 hours and did nothing and only in the morning of 16.05.2023 handed it to Constable Jai Narayan Rai for inquiring the matter.

11. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents has strenuously argued that it is apparent from the record that the petitioner was negligent in handling complaint of Mrs. Praveen pertaining to an effort to dislodge her modesty, which is a very sensitive matter, and he also did not inform about the said incident to his superior officers, and ultimately, when Mrs. Praveen lodged a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, then the First Information Report was registered as Criminal Case Crime No. 665 of 2013. It has also been argued that the disciplinary authority had considered the reply submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice and after taking into consideration, each and every point raised by the petitioner in his reply, had passed the punishment order dated 12.09.2013, as such, the punishment order does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality.

12. Learned Standing Counsel has thus argued that the learned Tribunal after considering each and every ground raised by the petitioner in his claim petition, had dismissed the Claim Petition No. 1619 of 2014 vide judgment and order dated 25.09.2017, as such, the order dated 25.09.2017 does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. The learned Tribunal did not find any ground for review of the judgment and order dated 25.09.2017, as such, it dismissed the Review Petition No. 117 of 2017 vide order dated 27.03.2018.

13. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents has concluded his arguments and has submitted that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed by this Court.

14. We have considered the rival arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the documents annexed with the writ petition.

15. We find that the first argument raised on behalf of the petitioner that he was not supplied copy of the preliminary inquiry report along with the show cause notice dated 03.08.2013 on its face, can not be sustained, as the petitioner himself while filing his reply to the show cause notice dated 03.08.2013 had categorically stated that the preliminary inquiry was faulty and the Inquiry Officer has not considered his version that the victim did not come to the Police Chowki. For ready reference, the extract of the reply submitted by the petitioner available at Page 142 of the writ petition is extracted as under:-

"?? ?????? ??? ?? ?? ????????? ???? ???? ???????? ??? ????? ???????? ?? ?? ??? ?? ????? ???? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?? ??? ???, ???? ?? ??????? ???? ???? ?? 12 ???? ??? ?? ????????? ???? ??, ????? ???? ???????? ?? ???? ?? ???????? ??????? ?????????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ???????? ?? ????? ???? ??????? ???? ? ??? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?? ????? ?? ??? ???? ?? ?? ??????? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ?????????? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ? ???? ???? ???? ????????? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ????????? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ???????? ?? ??? ????? ???????? ?????? ??? ?? ?? ??? ???"

16. Once, the petitioner himself in his reply to the show cause notice had discussed about the contents of the preliminary inquiry report then it is apparent that the said inquiry report was given to him along with the show cause notice especially as in the show cause notice itself it is mentioned that the inquiry report is annexed therewith.

17. We further find that the second argument raised on behalf of the petitioner that Mrs. Praveen did not come to the Police Chowki and her complaint was handed over to the petitioner by two local leaders in the morning of 16.05.2013 is also not sustainable, as the Constable No. 324, Civil Police, Mr. Jai Narayan Rai who was posted in the Police Chowki had categorically stated in the preliminary inquiry that the petitioner on 16.05.2013 at about 07.00AM handed over a complaint of Mrs. Praveen to him and said that two persons namely, Safi & Arvind came to the Chowki in the evening of 15.05.2013 and handed over the complaint, therefore, it is apparent that the complaint was handed over to the petitioner in the evening of 15.05.2013 and he kept the complaint with him for about 12 hours and did nothing in the matter. For ready reference, relevant extract of the preliminary inquiry report is extracted as under:-

"?????? 324 ??? ??? ?? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ??? ????? ???? ????????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ?? ?????? 16.05.2013 ?? ???? ???? 7:00 ??? ???? ??????? ???? ??????? ????? ???? ?? ??????? ????? ????? ??? ???? ?? ?? ????????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ?? ??? ??? ?? ?? ???? ??? ?? ??? ??? ??? ????? ?? ??? ?? ???? ??? ?? ??? ????? ???????? ????? ????? ?? ?? ??? ??????? ?? ??? ??? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ?? ?? ?????? ?????? ?? ?? ???????? ??? ?? ????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?? ??? ?? ???? ??? ??? ???? ?? ??? ??? ?? ??? ?? ?? ??? ?? ?? ???? ?? ????? ?? ?? ????? ?? ???? ??? ????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ?? ??? ??? ???? 12:00 ??? ??? ??? ????? ?? ???? ????????? ???? ?? ?? ?? ???? ??????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?? ?? ?? ???? ??????? ?????? ??? ????????? ???? ?? ?? ?????? 18.05.2013 ?? ??? ??? ???? 2:00 ??? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ?? ?? ??? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ????? ? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ?? ?? ??? ?? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ?? ????? ???? ????? ????? ?? ??????? ?? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ?? ??? ?? ????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ?? ??? ???? ???? ???"

18. It is apparent from the face of record that a complaint regarding attempt to outrage modesty of a lady was given to the petitioner in the evening of 15.05.2023 and he was reluctant in handling a very sensitive matter and did nothing for at least 12 hours and thereafter, he just got the matter inquired but did not inform about the said complaint to the superior officers. Ultimately, when Mrs. Praveen lodged a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Shravasti, the FIR in the matter was registered. We are of the view that once the complaint was received by the petitioner then he should have acted promptly and if his Chowki was not a reporting Chowki, then he should have immediately forwarded the said complaint to the Police Station concerned for registering an FIR in the matter, as the matter involved was very sensitive in nature.

19. The punishment order dated 12.09.2013 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Shravasti categorically reveals that the procedure prescribed under Rule 14(2) of the Rules, 1991 had been complied with and the disciplinary authority had considered the reply submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice, in detail and thereafter had imposed punishment of 'censure' against the petitioner. We further find that the learned Tribunal in its judgment and order dated 25.09.2017 had considered each and every argument raised on behalf of the petitioner, and thereby had dismissed the claim petition.

20. We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order dated 25.09.2017, the order dated 27.03.2018, the punishment order dated 12.09.2013 and the appellate order dated 06.01.2014.

21. Accordingly, this writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.

(Manjive Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)

September 10, 2025

Lokesh Kumar