High Court · 2025

1.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner(s) and learned Standing Counsel who has accepted notice on behalf of respondents.

2.By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has mainly prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing charge sheet dated 7.2.2025, Annexure No.1, issued by Addl. Deputy Commissioner of Police, New High Court Security, Lucknow, approved by the Dy. Commissioner of Police (Headquarter), Police Commissionerate, Lucknow, contrary to appendix 1 of Section 7 of the Police Act. A further writ of mandamus directing respondents not to proceed with the enquiry in pursuance to the charge sheet dated 7.2.2025 (Supra) with a further direction to the respondents to furnish certain documents to enable him to submit his reply to the charge sheet, has also been prayed.

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the charge sheet dated 7.2.2025 (supra) on the ground that it has not been approved by the appointing authority of the petitioner, i.e. Deputy Inspector General of Police. It is submitted that Rule 14(1) of U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (in short, 1991 Rules) provides that the procedure relating to conduct of departmental proceedings against police officer as provided under appendix 1 shall be adhered to. He has drawn attention of this court towards appendix-I and submits that the prescribed form of the charge to be used in the proceedings under section 7 of the Police Act, 1861 has been provided under appendix I. Before the last paragraph of the said form, charge sheet is required to be signed by the inquiring officer. The inquiring officer is further supposed to give name of the authority on behalf of whom he is acting.

4.Learned standing counsel, on the other hand, submits that the contention of petitioner's counsel is mis-conceived. First of all, neither in Rule 14(1) of 1991 Rules nor in the Form-1 of Appendix-I, there is any requirement for the charge sheet to be signed by the appointing authority. He further submits that in Form-1, merely words, 'For and On behalf of' are written and nothing more. It is submitted that similar controversy arose before a learned Single Judge of this Court in Ajay Kishor versus State of U.P. and others Writ A No.9766 of 2024. The Court has rejected the argument of the counsel for the petitioner of the said case

5.The second ground taken by petitioner's counsel is that during the course of enquiry, the petitioner has demanded certain documents from the enquiry officer, however, all the documents have not been provided to the petitioner. It is submitted that non-providing of all the documents is in violation of principle of natural justice.

6.I have considered the submission and perused the record.

7.The coordinate Bench of this Court while dismissing the writ petition of Ajay Kishore (supra) vide judgment and order dated 23.10.2024 has passed the following order (relevant portion) : "15. With regard to the challenge made to the charge-sheet, it is noticed that the same was given to the petitioner on 21.09.2024 by the Inquiry Officer, namely, Additional Superintendent of Police, Firozabad. This Court has also perused the rules pertaining to the petitioner, namely, U.P. Police Officers of Sub-Ordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. According to Appendix-I of Rule 14(1), of Rules of 1991 which provides for procedure relating to the conduct of departmental proceedings against police officer is as under:- "Upon institution of a formal enquiry such Police Officer against whom the inquiry has been instituted shall be informed in writing of the grounds on which was proposed to take action and shall be afforded an adequate opportunity of defending himself. The grounds on which it is proposed to take action shall be used in the form of a definite charge or charges as in Form 1 appended to these Rules which shall be communicated to the charged Police Officer and which shall be so clear and precise as to give sufficient indication to the charged Police Officer, of the facts and circumstances against him. He shall be required, within a reasonable time, to put in, in a written statement of his defence and to state, whether he desires to be heard in person. If he so desires, or if the Inquiry Officer so directs an oral enquiry shall be held in respect of such of the allegation as are not admitted. At that enquiry such oral evidence will be recorded as the Inquiry Officer considers necessary. The charge Police Officer shall be entitled to cross- examine the witnesses to give evidence in person and to have such witnesses called as he may wish: Provided that the Inquiry Officer may for sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing refuse to call a witness. The proceedings shall contain a sufficient record of the evidence and statement of the finding and the ground thereof. The Inquiry Officer may also separately from these proceedings make his own recommendation regarding the punishment to be imposed on the charged Police Officer."

16. A perusal of the aforesaid rule, clearly indicates that upon institution of formal inquiry such police officer against whom the inquiry has been informed in writing on the ground to take was proposed to take action and afforded opportunity to defend himself. The Form attached thereunder also indicates that the charge- sheet has to be given by the Inquiry Officer. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that Inquiry Officer has given a charge-sheet to the petitioner. The petitioner has relied upon the judgment in the case of Union of India Vs. B.V. Gopinath, 2013 (14) SCR 185, to canvass the submission that the charge-sheet has to be approved by the disciplinary authority and in case is not approved by the disciplinary authority it is nonest and bad in the eyes of law.

17. This Court has perused the judgment of the Supreme Court and therein the provisions pertaining to the Central Civil Services (Clarification and Control) Rules, 1965 were applicable, the said Rules themselves provide that the charge- sheet has to be approved by the disciplinary authority and interpreting said rules, the Supreme Court was of the view that any charge-sheet given without approval of the disciplinary authority would be nonest and illegal. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court is clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case where no such procedure has been prescribed under Rule 14 (1) of the Rules of 1991.

18. There is no doubt that the Inquiry Officer has handed over the charge-sheet to the petitioner and accordingly this Court does not find any infirmity or any conflict with the provisions of Rule 14(1) of the said rules, hence the said argument 19. Considering the arguments of the petitioner that the inquiry report on the basis of which the proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner were conducted by a Superintendent of Police while in the present case the Inquiry Officer is the Additional Superintendent of Police and in such a situated an Additional Superintendent of Police would not be competent to conduct any inquiry. rejected.

20. With regard to the aforesaid submissions, it is noticed that the previous inquiry which was conducted was an open inquiry and was not targeted against any individual rather than it was a fact finding inquiry pertaining to finding of the cause of death due to consumption of illicit liquor. Certain findings have been recorded in the said inquiry report where one of the findings also pertain to the dereliction of duly by the petitioner. It is because the role of the petitioner has been brought forthwith in the said inquiry and there is no infirmity on account of the fact that on disclosure of the aforesaid facts inquiry proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner. The action if any against the petitioner would be taken only in pursuance of the disciplinary inquiry initiated against the petitioner where the charges levelled will have to be proved and the previous inquiry would be of no consequence once an inquiry has been initiated against the petitioner in accordance with law.

21. The purpose of the previous inquiry dated 05.06.2023 was limited to due considerations by the concerned authority to initiate action against the petitioner and not to inflict any punishment against the petitioner. The concerned authority after examining the said inquiry report has taken a decision to proceed against the petitioner and accordingly now the proceedings are being conducted in terms of the charge-sheet where specific charges have been levelled against the petitioner. Accordingly, the previous inquiry report has no relevance or material effect on the inquiry proceeding against the petitioner where the charges levellved against him has to be proved in the proceedings itself. Accordingly, also examining the impugned order, this Court find that the charges levelled against the petitioner are specific relating to a particular incident pertaining to particular investigation in pursuance of the two first information reports lodged at the concerned police station. This Court does not find that the charges are vague and accordingly the challenge in this regard also fails.

22. Considering the fact that the proceedings are to be conducted in pursuance of the rules of 1991, this Court finds that there is provisions for adequate opportunity to be given to the delinquent employee before conclusion of the same, this Court has no hesitation that due opportunity will be given to the petitioner at all stages to the injury. Accordingly, the writ petition is bereft of merits and is dismissed. "

8.The court while dealing with the submission of petitioner's counsel of that petition has distinguished the judgment in Union of India versus B.V. Gopinath 2013(14) SCR 185 and has given a finding that the said judgment is distinguishable from the facts of the case in that petition where no such procedure has been given under Rule 14 of 1991 Rules that the charge sheet has to be approved by the disciplinary authority.

9.This court has also perused Rule 14 of 1991 Rules as also Appendix-I. There appears to be no procedure which warrants that the charge sheet should be approved by the disciplinary authority. I am not inclined to take a different view than what has been taken by the Single Judge.

10.It is significant to note that against the judgment in Ajay Kishor's case (supra), a special appeal No.277 of 2024 Ajay Kishor versus State of U.P. and others was filed before a Division Bench of this Court which has been dismissed vide order dated 26.11.2024 while upholding the judgment of learned Single Judge.

11.As regards the second ground taken by the petitioner that certain documents have not been provided by the enquiry officer during disciplinary proceedings, the same shall be looked into once the disciplinary enquiry is concluded. After conclusion of enquiry, in case the petitioner is aggrieved of the enquiry proceedings, it shall be open for him to assail the same. The petitioner cannot be permitted to approach this court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India at every stage of disciplinary proceedings.

12.In view of the above, I find no merit in the petition. It is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 9.5.2025 kkb/ KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner(s) and learned Standing Counsel who has accepted notice on behalf of respondents.

2.By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has mainly prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing charge sheet dated 7.2.2025, Annexure No.1, issued by Addl. Deputy Commissioner of Police, New High Court Security, Lucknow, approved by the Dy. Commissioner of Police (Headquarter), Police Commissionerate, Lucknow, contrary to appendix 1 of Section 7 of the Police Act. A further writ of mandamus directing respondents not to proceed with the enquiry in pursuance to the charge sheet dated 7.2.2025 (Supra) with a further direction to the respondents to furnish certain documents to enable him to submit his reply to the charge sheet, has also been prayed.

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the charge sheet dated 7.2.2025 (supra) on the ground that it has not been approved by the appointing authority of the petitioner, i.e. Deputy Inspector General of Police. It is submitted that Rule 14(1) of U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (in short, 1991 Rules) provides that the procedure relating to conduct of departmental proceedings against police officer as provided under appendix 1 shall be adhered to. He has drawn attention of this court towards appendix-I and submits that the prescribed form of the charge to be used in the proceedings under section 7 of the Police Act, 1861 has been provided under appendix I. Before the last paragraph of the said form, charge sheet is required to be signed by the inquiring officer. The inquiring officer is further supposed to give name of the authority on behalf of whom he is acting.

4.Learned standing counsel, on the other hand, submits that the contention of petitioner's counsel is mis-conceived. First of all, neither in Rule 14(1) of 1991 Rules nor in the Form-1 of Appendix-I, there is any requirement for the charge sheet to be signed by the appointing authority. He further submits that in Form-1, merely words, 'For and On behalf of' are written and nothing more. It is submitted that similar controversy arose before a learned Single Judge of this Court in Ajay Kishor versus State of U.P. and others Writ A No.9766 of 2024. The Court has rejected the argument of the counsel for the petitioner of the said case

5.The second ground taken by petitioner's counsel is that during the course of enquiry, the petitioner has demanded certain documents from the enquiry officer, however, all the documents have not been provided to the petitioner. It is submitted that non-providing of all the documents is in violation of principle of natural justice.

6.I have considered the submission and perused the record.

7.The coordinate Bench of this Court while dismissing the writ petition of Ajay Kishore (supra) vide judgment and order dated 23.10.2024 has passed the following order (relevant portion) : "15. With regard to the challenge made to the charge-sheet, it is noticed that the same was given to the petitioner on 21.09.2024 by the Inquiry Officer, namely, Additional Superintendent of Police, Firozabad. This Court has also perused the rules pertaining to the petitioner, namely, U.P. Police Officers of Sub-Ordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. According to Appendix-I of Rule 14(1), of Rules of 1991 which provides for procedure relating to the conduct of departmental proceedings against police officer is as under:- "Upon institution of a formal enquiry such Police Officer against whom the inquiry has been instituted shall be informed in writing of the grounds on which was proposed to take action and shall be afforded an adequate opportunity of defending himself. The grounds on which it is proposed to take action shall be used in the form of a definite charge or charges as in Form 1 appended to these Rules which shall be communicated to the charged Police Officer and which shall be so clear and precise as to give sufficient indication to the charged Police Officer, of the facts and circumstances against him. He shall be required, within a reasonable time, to put in, in a written statement of his defence and to state, whether he desires to be heard in person. If he so desires, or if the Inquiry Officer so directs an oral enquiry shall be held in respect of such of the allegation as are not admitted. At that enquiry such oral evidence will be recorded as the Inquiry Officer considers necessary. The charge Police Officer shall be entitled to cross- examine the witnesses to give evidence in person and to have such witnesses called as he may wish: Provided that the Inquiry Officer may for sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing refuse to call a witness. The proceedings shall contain a sufficient record of the evidence and statement of the finding and the ground thereof. The Inquiry Officer may also separately from these proceedings make his own recommendation regarding the punishment to be imposed on the charged Police Officer."

16. A perusal of the aforesaid rule, clearly indicates that upon institution of formal inquiry such police officer against whom the inquiry has been informed in writing on the ground to take was proposed to take action and afforded opportunity to defend himself. The Form attached thereunder also indicates that the charge- sheet has to be given by the Inquiry Officer. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that Inquiry Officer has given a charge-sheet to the petitioner. The petitioner has relied upon the judgment in the case of Union of India Vs. B.V. Gopinath, 2013 (14) SCR 185, to canvass the submission that the charge-sheet has to be approved by the disciplinary authority and in case is not approved by the disciplinary authority it is nonest and bad in the eyes of law.

17. This Court has perused the judgment of the Supreme Court and therein the provisions pertaining to the Central Civil Services (Clarification and Control) Rules, 1965 were applicable, the said Rules themselves provide that the charge- sheet has to be approved by the disciplinary authority and interpreting said rules, the Supreme Court was of the view that any charge-sheet given without approval of the disciplinary authority would be nonest and illegal. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court is clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case where no such procedure has been prescribed under Rule 14 (1) of the Rules of 1991.

18. There is no doubt that the Inquiry Officer has handed over the charge-sheet to the petitioner and accordingly this Court does not find any infirmity or any conflict with the provisions of Rule 14(1) of the said rules, hence the said argument 19. Considering the arguments of the petitioner that the inquiry report on the basis of which the proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner were conducted by a Superintendent of Police while in the present case the Inquiry Officer is the Additional Superintendent of Police and in such a situated an Additional Superintendent of Police would not be competent to conduct any inquiry. rejected.

20. With regard to the aforesaid submissions, it is noticed that the previous inquiry which was conducted was an open inquiry and was not targeted against any individual rather than it was a fact finding inquiry pertaining to finding of the cause of death due to consumption of illicit liquor. Certain findings have been recorded in the said inquiry report where one of the findings also pertain to the dereliction of duly by the petitioner. It is because the role of the petitioner has been brought forthwith in the said inquiry and there is no infirmity on account of the fact that on disclosure of the aforesaid facts inquiry proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner. The action if any against the petitioner would be taken only in pursuance of the disciplinary inquiry initiated against the petitioner where the charges levelled will have to be proved and the previous inquiry would be of no consequence once an inquiry has been initiated against the petitioner in accordance with law.

21. The purpose of the previous inquiry dated 05.06.2023 was limited to due considerations by the concerned authority to initiate action against the petitioner and not to inflict any punishment against the petitioner. The concerned authority after examining the said inquiry report has taken a decision to proceed against the petitioner and accordingly now the proceedings are being conducted in terms of the charge-sheet where specific charges have been levelled against the petitioner. Accordingly, the previous inquiry report has no relevance or material effect on the inquiry proceeding against the petitioner where the charges levellved against him has to be proved in the proceedings itself. Accordingly, also examining the impugned order, this Court find that the charges levelled against the petitioner are specific relating to a particular incident pertaining to particular investigation in pursuance of the two first information reports lodged at the concerned police station. This Court does not find that the charges are vague and accordingly the challenge in this regard also fails.

22. Considering the fact that the proceedings are to be conducted in pursuance of the rules of 1991, this Court finds that there is provisions for adequate opportunity to be given to the delinquent employee before conclusion of the same, this Court has no hesitation that due opportunity will be given to the petitioner at all stages to the injury. Accordingly, the writ petition is bereft of merits and is dismissed. "

8.The court while dealing with the submission of petitioner's counsel of that petition has distinguished the judgment in Union of India versus B.V. Gopinath 2013(14) SCR 185 and has given a finding that the said judgment is distinguishable from the facts of the case in that petition where no such procedure has been given under Rule 14 of 1991 Rules that the charge sheet has to be approved by the disciplinary authority.

9.This court has also perused Rule 14 of 1991 Rules as also Appendix-I. There appears to be no procedure which warrants that the charge sheet should be approved by the disciplinary authority. I am not inclined to take a different view than what has been taken by the Single Judge.

10.It is significant to note that against the judgment in Ajay Kishor's case (supra), a special appeal No.277 of 2024 Ajay Kishor versus State of U.P. and others was filed before a Division Bench of this Court which has been dismissed vide order dated 26.11.2024 while upholding the judgment of learned Single Judge.

11.As regards the second ground taken by the petitioner that certain documents have not been provided by the enquiry officer during disciplinary proceedings, the same shall be looked into once the disciplinary enquiry is concluded. After conclusion of enquiry, in case the petitioner is aggrieved of the enquiry proceedings, it shall be open for him to assail the same. The petitioner cannot be permitted to approach this court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India at every stage of disciplinary proceedings.

12.In view of the above, I find no merit in the petition. It is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 9.5.2025 kkb/ KRISHNA KUMAR BARANWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench