High Court · 2025
Case Details
11. Per contra, Sri Prafulla Kumar Yadav, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents, has vehemently argued that although the petitioner was initially suspended, he was subsequently awarded a minor punishment in accordance with the procedure laid down under Rule 14(2) of the U.P. Police OfÏcers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1991. This rule places an obligation on the competent authority to inform the delinquent employee in writing of the proposed action and to provide an opportunity of hearing. In the present case, a show cause notice dated 01.02.2019 was duly issued, and after considering the petitioner's reply dated
20.02.2019, the order of punishment dated
15.03.2019 was rightly passed. Therefore, the findings of the Learned Tribunal do not suffer from any infirmity.
12. It has been further submitted that, in the preliminary enquiry conducted, the colleague of the petitioner, namely, Mahesh Yadav, specifically stated in his testimony that he was on patrol duty with the petitioner. He deposed that when the vehicles were stopped by the petitioner and the drivers were asked to produce the documents, they failed to do so. Consequently, they were directed to proceed to the police station with their trolleys. Mahesh Yadav sat on one of the trolleys, while the other was driven by one Sri Chhannu, and the petitioner reached the police station by jeep. Head Constable Radhe Shyam also gave a statement supporting this version of events. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the veracity of these facts, particularly that the petitioner compelled the drivers of the trolleys to come to the police station in order to exert pressure on them to meet the demands allegedly made by him.
13. Having heard learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of record, it transpires that a written statement was filed by the State/Respondents, in which it was specifically mentioned that, on the basis of the complaint made by the local MLA, a fact-finding enquiry was conducted to ascertain the correctness of the allegations levelled against the petitioner. Based on the statements of the witnesses and the material on record, the Enquiry OfÏcer found the allegations to be true and submitted the report. Thereafter, on the basis of the findings in the aforesaid preliminary enquiry report, a decision was taken to initiate proceedings for imposition of a minor punishment under Rule 4(b), in accordance with the provisions of Rule 14(2) of the U.P. Police OfÏcers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1991. Rule 14(2) provides that punishments in cases referred to in sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 against police ofÏcers may be imposed after informing the ofÏcer in writing of the action proposed to be taken against him and of the imputations of acts or omissions on which the proposed action is based, and after giving him a reasonable opportunity to make a representation. Since the procedure provided under the Rules was duly followed, there is no illegality in the order of punishment.
14. Thus, having regard to the aforesaid rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties in the light of the facts of this case, it is abundantly clear that the petitioner has been awarded minor punishment after giving him the show cause notice dated 01.02.2019 and after considering the reply submitted by him, and the Tribunal has considered each aspect of the matter in its correct perspective, therefore, we are of the considered view that there is no illegality or irregularity in the judgment and order dated
30.10.2023 and thus, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which is accordingly dismissed.
15. There shall be no order as to costs. (Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J) (Attau Rahman Masoodi, J) Order Date :- 21.5.2025 A.Dewal ASHISH DEWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
11. Per contra, Sri Prafulla Kumar Yadav, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents, has vehemently argued that although the petitioner was initially suspended, he was subsequently awarded a minor punishment in accordance with the procedure laid down under Rule 14(2) of the U.P. Police OfÏcers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1991. This rule places an obligation on the competent authority to inform the delinquent employee in writing of the proposed action and to provide an opportunity of hearing. In the present case, a show cause notice dated 01.02.2019 was duly issued, and after considering the petitioner's reply dated
20.02.2019, the order of punishment dated
15.03.2019 was rightly passed. Therefore, the findings of the Learned Tribunal do not suffer from any infirmity.
12. It has been further submitted that, in the preliminary enquiry conducted, the colleague of the petitioner, namely, Mahesh Yadav, specifically stated in his testimony that he was on patrol duty with the petitioner. He deposed that when the vehicles were stopped by the petitioner and the drivers were asked to produce the documents, they failed to do so. Consequently, they were directed to proceed to the police station with their trolleys. Mahesh Yadav sat on one of the trolleys, while the other was driven by one Sri Chhannu, and the petitioner reached the police station by jeep. Head Constable Radhe Shyam also gave a statement supporting this version of events. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the veracity of these facts, particularly that the petitioner compelled the drivers of the trolleys to come to the police station in order to exert pressure on them to meet the demands allegedly made by him.
13. Having heard learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of record, it transpires that a written statement was filed by the State/Respondents, in which it was specifically mentioned that, on the basis of the complaint made by the local MLA, a fact-finding enquiry was conducted to ascertain the correctness of the allegations levelled against the petitioner. Based on the statements of the witnesses and the material on record, the Enquiry OfÏcer found the allegations to be true and submitted the report. Thereafter, on the basis of the findings in the aforesaid preliminary enquiry report, a decision was taken to initiate proceedings for imposition of a minor punishment under Rule 4(b), in accordance with the provisions of Rule 14(2) of the U.P. Police OfÏcers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1991. Rule 14(2) provides that punishments in cases referred to in sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 against police ofÏcers may be imposed after informing the ofÏcer in writing of the action proposed to be taken against him and of the imputations of acts or omissions on which the proposed action is based, and after giving him a reasonable opportunity to make a representation. Since the procedure provided under the Rules was duly followed, there is no illegality in the order of punishment.
14. Thus, having regard to the aforesaid rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties in the light of the facts of this case, it is abundantly clear that the petitioner has been awarded minor punishment after giving him the show cause notice dated 01.02.2019 and after considering the reply submitted by him, and the Tribunal has considered each aspect of the matter in its correct perspective, therefore, we are of the considered view that there is no illegality or irregularity in the judgment and order dated
30.10.2023 and thus, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which is accordingly dismissed.
15. There shall be no order as to costs. (Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J) (Attau Rahman Masoodi, J) Order Date :- 21.5.2025 A.Dewal ASHISH DEWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench