High Court · 2025

Mr. Vivek Shukla, learned counsel t hrough V.C. and Mr. B.M. appearing Pingal, learned counsel for pet it ioner 2. Mr. Devendra Singh Bora, learned St anding Ut t arakhand/ respondent s. 3. Pet it ioner as Sub I nspect or in Ut t arakhand Police. Minor penalt y of censure was im posed upon him by SSP, Nainit al vide order dat ed t he 29.03.2011. Pet it ioner challenged said punishm ent in an appeal, which was dism issed by I nspect or General of Police, Kum aoun Range, Nainit al vide order dat ed 20.10.2011. Pet it ioner challenged aforesaid t wo orders before Ut t arakhand Public Service Tribunal by filing Claim Pet it ion No.08/ NB/ SB/ 2017. The claim learned pet it ion was dism issed by dat ed t ribunal j udgm ent t he 10.09.2018. Relevant ext ract of im pugned reproduced j udgm ent below: - t he year 2010 “ 8. Pet it ioner, while serving as Sub I nspect or in CCR Haldwani, was sent for healt h check up in Base Hospit al, Haldwani on 12.09.2010, as per his st at em ent of being ill. His Rawanagi was ent ered in General Diary of Cit y Cont rol Room , but he did not m ake any m edical checkup eit her in t he Base Hospit al, Haldwani or in any ot her hospit al and on a false pret end of being ill, he t o t hat conduct ed avoided t he Governm ent dut y of being deput ed at Nanda Devi Mela at Nainit al. He was also charged t o t ear t he pages of G.D. of Cit y Cont rol Room , Haldwani and t o ut t er t he words of disregard t o t he senior officers. A det ailed prelim inary Addl. inquiry Superint endent of Police, Nainit al, which pet it ioner was given full opport unit y of hearing. His st at em ent was also recorded by t he inquiry officer, wherein it inst ead of get t ing m edically exam ined on 12.09.2010, he cont radict ory st at em ent was given by him during t he course of inquiry. The inquiry report ( Annexure: 3) was prepared by t he inquiry officer on t he basis of st at em ent s of t he relevant wit nesses. Agreeing wit h t he inquiry report , a show cause not ice was issued t o t he pet it ioner and his reply t he show cause not ice was duly t o considered by respondent No.4 and t he im pugned punishm ent order was passed by him . Respondent No.4 specifically m ent ioned t hat t he explanat ion subm it t ed by t he pet it ioner was not sat isfact ory, hence, a 'censure ent ry was ordered t o be roll. The in his charact er recorded punishm ent order ( Annexure: 2) was passed aft er considering all t he fact s and circum st ances. 9. The appeal preferred by t he pet it ioner t he appellat e aut horit y, respondent No.3, and all t he cont ent ions r aised by t he pet it ioner were dealt wit h and t hereaft er a reasoned order was 20.10.2011 ( Annexure: 1) . 10. Pet it ioner did not file any pet it ion wit hin t he prescribed t im e of lim it at ion and t his pet it ion was filed on 25.04.2017, aft er a delay of about six years. However, t he pet it ioner has subm it t ed t hat he filed a revision against t he order passed by t he respondent s, but t he sam e was ret urned on t he ground of non- m aint ainabilit y, in t he year 2015. 11. This Court finds t hat even t he revision was also t im e barred and as per t he relevant Rules, t he opport unit y of revision t horoughly considered passed is not available t o t he pet it ioner under t he new Police Act , 2007. 12. Pet it ioner has subm it t ed t hat under t he provision of RTI , Act , inform at ion w as sought from t he office of respondent s t hat under what provision he was punished and in reply t o t he sam e, let t er dat ed ( Annexure: 7) was m ade 17.08.2012 available t o t he pet it ioner, wherein it was clarified t hat t he punishm ent was awarded under t he provisions of Rules of 1991. 13. This Court finds t hat it m akes no difference, because t he pet it ioner was awarded sufficient opport unit y of hearing, all t he principles of nat ural j ust ice were followed, punishm ent was awarded aft er considering t he reply of t he pet it ioner and t he kind of punishm ent is also provided under t he old Rules and new Rules. 12. We are of t he view t hat t here is no perversit y in t he order passed by t he respondent s and Court cannot int erfere int o t he t he subj ect ive sat isfact ion of disciplinary aut horit y. The claim pet it ion, t o be being devoid of m erit . deserve dism issed. wit hout pet it ioner

4. Learned counsel for t he pet it ioner subm it s t hat pet it ioner was not given fair hearing by t he SSP while passing t he punishm ent order. He furt her subm it s t hat t he officer who passed punishm ent order, was biased against pet it ioner and im posed punishm ent of censure was collect ing evidence. Thus, he subm it s t hat learned t ribunal has overlooked t hese aspect s, t herefore, im pugned j udgm ent is liable t o be set aside. 5. Learned St at e counsel subm it s t hat censure is a m inor punishm ent which can be given aft er issuing show cause not ice t o a police officer and form al disciplinary enquiry is not needed for im posing such penalt y. He subm it s t hat t he allegat ion of t he against subm it s bias against t he SSP is unfounded. He t hat a prelim inary furt her Addit ional enquiry Superint endent of Police, Nainit al allegat ions t he t o be correct . pet it ioner were Thereaft er pet it ioner was given a not ice on 01.03.2001 in which m isconduct allegedly com m it t ed by pet it ioner was m ent ioned and he was called upon t o give reply. He subm it s t hat reply given by pet it ioner was not t o be sat isfact ory, t herefore, Superint endent of Police im posed punishm ent of censure. He subm it s t hat appellat e aut horit y has dealt wit h t he issues raised by pet it ioner in det ail while dism issing t he appeal. Thus, he subm it s t hat learned t ribunal was j ust ified in not int erfering wit h t he orders passed by punishing and appellat e aut horit y. Learned St at e Counsel subm it s t hat punishm ent order will not com e in t he way of prom ot ion of pet it ioner now, t o be as ACR of considered at t he t im e of prom ot ion and t he punishm ent order was passed 2011. 6. We t he t ribunal im pugned has ret urned a finding t hat principles of nat ural j ust ice were followed, reply of t he pet it ioner was considered, t herefore, t he punishm ent im posed cannot be int erfered wit h. We find no reason t o t ake a view different from t he one t aken t ribunal. While exercising power of j udicial review, t his Court as well as learned t ribunal are concerned j udgm ent . Learned five years t hrough learned wit h t he decision m aking process and not t he decision it self. Since t he laid down procedure was followed by punishing aut horit y, while passing t he punishm ent order, t herefore, we do not find any reason t o int erfere in t he m at t er. The writ pet it ion t hus fails and is dism issed. ( A sh i sh N a i t h a n i , J.) ( M a n o j K u m ar Ti w a r i , 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