Raghib Ali v. State of Uttarakhand others

Mr. T.A. Khan, learned senior counsel. Counsel for State Mr. Sushil Vashistha, learned Brief Holder. JUDGMENT : (PER HON’BLE MR. MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI. J) Punishment of censure was imposed upon the petitioner by Superintendent of Police, Dehradun vide order dated 07.02.2019. Petitioner filed a departmental appeal against the said order, which was dismissed. Petitioner thereafter approached Public Service Tribunal by filing Claim Petition No.126(S/B)2019. His claim petition was dismissed by learned Tribunal vide judgment dated 20.02.2020. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. Relevant extract of the impugned judgment is reproduced below:- ”21. This Tribunal, therefore does not find it to be a case of judicial review, in the absence of any material on record, to hold that formation of belief opinion by the appointing authority, as upheld by the appellate authority, suffers from malafide or there is anything, on record, to hold that there was procedural error resulting in manifest miscarriage of justice and violation of principles of natural justice. There were reasonable grounds before the authorities below to have arrived at such conclusion. This Tribunal is of the view that due process of law has been followed while holding the delinquent guilty of misconduct. No legal infirmity has successfully been pointed out in the same. 1

22. Any allegation against the delinquent Police official, may not be treated as true, but when such insinuation is fertified by some substance, on record, the court may draw an adverse inference against the delinquent. Standard of proof, in departmental proceedings, is preponderance of probability and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. Preponderance of probability has to be adjudged from the point of view of a reasonable prudent person. If present case is adjudged from the aforesaid yardstick, this Tribunal finds no reason to interfere in the inference drawn by the Disciplinary Authority, as upheld by the Appellate Authority. This Tribunal, therefore, is unable to take a view different from what was taken by the appointing authority as upheld by the appellate authority.

23. The order displayed under Annexure: A-1, as also appellate order Annexure: A-3 are neither illegal nor irrational and nor do they suffer from procedural propriety. The claim petition is devoid of merits in respect of impugned orders Annexure: A-1 & Annexure: A-3.

24. The relief No. (ii), as sought by the petitioner, in his claim petition for granting him full salary for the suspension period from 18.05.2018 to 27.05.2018, appears to be premature. According to the petitioner, only subsistence allowance has been paid to him, whereas he is entitled to full salary of suspension period. No document has been filed to show that any appeal has been filed against non-payment of full salary for suspension period. Law requires that the petitioner should ordinarily exhaust all his remedies before coming to the Tribunal in claim petition [Sub-section (5) of Section 4 of the U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976 (as applicable to Uttarakhand)]. Since the petitioner has not filed any departmental appeal against non-payment of full salary for the suspension period, therefore, we hold that the said prayer is premature, leaving it open to the petitioner to file departmental appeal, but only in accordance with law.

25. We, therefore, do not think it proper to comment upon the validity or otherwise of the order whereby the petitioner was denied full salary for thesuspension period, leaving it upon to the petitioner to approach appropriate torun for redressal of his grievance no.(ii).

26. The claim petition is dismissed in respect of reliefs no. (i) and (iii). In the circumstances, no order as to costs.”

2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no evidence at all for imposing the punishment of censure upon the petitioner, therefore, the punishment order is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. He further 2 submits that punishment order was passed extraneous reason, and therefore, judgment rendered by learned Tribunal is liable to be set aside. He further submits that compact disc in respect of the phone recording was not sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination.

3. Per contra learned State Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the statement made by the petitioner during the course of preliminary inquiry, which is at page 61 of the paperbook, where petitioner admits that he had agreed to do the work upon payment of Rs.5,000/- by the complainant. Petitioner has also accepted that the phone call, regarding the deal, was recorded by complainant-Constable Sanjay.

4. Learned State Counsel further submits that punishment of censure is a minor penalty, which can be imposed after issuance of show-cause notice and formal disciplinary inquiry is not needed for imposing such punishment. He submits that the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the compact disc was not sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination is also erroneous as petitioner has admitted that phone call was recorded, and admission is the best proof, therefore, no further evidence is needed for proving the guilt.

5. We find substance in the submissions made by learned State Counsel. 3

6. We have gone through impugned judgment. Learned Tribunal has considered and discussed the matter in detail and has given valid reasons for dismissing the claim petition.

7. Having regard to the nature of offence, and the admission made by the petitioner before the Inquiry Officer, who held preliminary inquiry, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. We, however, dispose of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach competent authority regarding his claim for unpaid salary over and above the subsistence allowance, paid to him for the period, he remained under suspension. If petitioner makes representation for the purpose within three weeks from today, the competent authority shall look into the matter and pass a reasoned order within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI. J. ASHISH NAITHANI, J. Dt:29th April, 2025 NR/ 4