WPSB/131/2019
2025 Latest Caselaw 380 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

WPSB/131/2019 on 14 May, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

                                                                 2025:UHC:3899-DB
              Office Notes,
             reports, orders
             or proceedings
SL.
      Date    or directions                COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
             and Registrar's
               order with
               Signatures
                               WPSB No.131 of 2019
                               Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J. Judgment: (per Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)

Mr. Vivek Shukla, learned counsel appearing through V.C. and Mr. B.M. Pingal, learned counsel for petitioner

2. Mr. Devendra Singh Bora, learned Standing Counsel for State of Uttarakhand/respondents.

3. Petitioner is serving as Sub Inspector in Uttarakhand Police. Minor penalty of censure was imposed upon him by SSP, Nainital vide order dated 29.03.2011. Petitioner challenged the said punishment in an appeal, which was dismissed by Inspector General of Police, Kumaoun Range, Nainital vide order dated 20.10.2011. Petitioner challenged aforesaid two orders before Uttarakhand Public Service Tribunal by filing Claim Petition No.08/NB/SB/2017. The claim petition was dismissed by learned tribunal vide judgment dated 10.09.2018. Relevant extract of the impugned judgment is reproduced below:-

"8. Petitioner, while serving as Sub Inspector in the year 2010 in CCR Haldwani, was sent for health check up in Base Hospital, Haldwani on 12.09.2010, as per his statement of being ill. His Rawanagi was entered in General Diary of City Control Room, but he did not make any medical checkup either in the Base Hospital, Haldwani or in any other hospital and on a false pretend of being ill, he 2025:UHC:3899-DB avoided the Government duty of being deputed at Nanda Devi Mela at Nainital. He was also charged to tear the pages of G.D. of City Control Room, Haldwani and to utter the words of disregard to the senior officers. A detailed preliminary inquiry was conducted by Addl.

Superintendent of Police, Nainital, in which petitioner was given full opportunity of hearing. His statement was also recorded by the inquiry officer, wherein it was found that instead of getting medically examined on 12.09.2010, he went to his room for rest and contradictory statement was given by him during the course of inquiry. The inquiry report (Annexure: 3) was prepared by the inquiry officer on the basis of statements of the relevant witnesses. Agreeing with the inquiry report, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and his reply to the show cause notice was duly considered by respondent No.4 and the impugned punishment order was passed by him. Respondent No.4 specifically mentioned that the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not satisfactory, hence, a 'censure entry was ordered to be recorded in his character roll. The punishment order (Annexure: 2) was passed after considering all the facts and circumstances.

9. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was thoroughly considered by the appellate authority, respondent No.3, and all the contentions raised by the petitioner were dealt with and thereafter a reasoned order was passed on 20.10.2011 (Annexure: 1).

10. Petitioner did not file any petition within the prescribed time of limitation and this petition was filed on 25.04.2017, after a delay of about six years. However, the petitioner has submitted that he filed a revision against the order passed by the respondents, but the same was returned on the ground of non-maintainability, in the year 2015.

11. This Court finds that even the revision was also time barred and as per the relevant Rules, the opportunity of revision 2025:UHC:3899-DB is not available to the petitioner under the new Police Act, 2007.

12. Petitioner has submitted that under the provision of RTI, Act, information was sought from the office of respondents that under what provision he was punished and in reply to the same, letter dated 17.08.2012 (Annexure: 7) was made available to the petitioner, wherein it was clarified that the punishment was awarded under the provisions of Rules of 1991.

13. This Court finds that it makes no difference, because the petitioner was awarded sufficient opportunity of hearing, all the principles of natural justice were followed, punishment was awarded after considering the reply of the petitioner and the kind of punishment is also provided under the old Rules and new Rules.

12. We are of the view that there is no perversity in the order passed by the respondents and Court cannot interfere into the subjective satisfaction of the disciplinary authority. The claim petition, being devoid of merit. deserve to be dismissed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not given fair hearing by the SSP while passing the punishment order. He further submits that the officer who passed punishment order, was biased against petitioner and punishment of censure was imposed upon petitioner without collecting evidence. Thus, he submits that learned tribunal has overlooked these aspects, therefore, impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.

5. Learned State counsel submits that censure is a minor punishment which can be given after issuing show cause notice to a police officer and formal disciplinary enquiry is not needed for imposing such penalty. He submits that the allegation of 2025:UHC:3899-DB

bias against the SSP is unfounded. He further submits that a preliminary enquiry was held by Additional Superintendent of Police, Nainital in which the allegations against the petitioner were found to be correct. Thereafter petitioner was given a notice on 01.03.2001 in which misconduct allegedly committed by petitioner was mentioned and he was called upon to give reply. He submits that reply given by petitioner was not found to be satisfactory, therefore, Superintendent of Police imposed punishment of censure. He submits that appellate authority has dealt with the issues raised by petitioner in detail while dismissing the appeal. Thus, he submits that learned tribunal was justified in not interfering with the orders passed by punishing and appellate authority. Learned State Counsel submits that punishment order will not come in the way of promotion of petitioner now, as ACR of last five years is to be considered at the time of promotion and the punishment order was passed in 2011.

6. We have gone through the impugned judgment. Learned tribunal has returned a finding that principles of natural justice were followed, reply of the petitioner was considered, therefore, the punishment imposed cannot be interfered with. We find no reason to take a view different from the one taken by learned tribunal. While exercising power of judicial review, this Court as well as learned tribunal are concerned 2025:UHC:3899-DB

with the decision making process and not the decision itself. Since the laid down procedure was followed by punishing authority, while passing the punishment order, therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere in the matter. The writ petition thus fails and is dismissed.

(Ashish Naithani, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 14.05.2025 Arti ARTI SINGH Digitally signed by ARTI SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=487ed955e722ba65aab55409e686c12fb83a19325e8b66890fbee418e7b69c0d, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26DC90E00D839E3E8714131F235087D2D87E133C57E7F4A7B2E734BE2521F982, cn=ARTI SINGH Date: 2025.05.16 17:36:55 +05'30' 2025:UHC:3899-DB