High Court · 2025

3. The brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner is a government servant who is presently working as an Inspector at the Reserve Police Lines, Ayodhya. It is alleged that when the petitioner was posted as In-charge Inspector at Police Station Ramnagar, District Barabanki, an F.I.R. bearing No. 56/2020 under Section 302 I.P.C. against unknown persons was registered on

10.02.2020, based on a written complaint by the informant, Shri Rakesh Jaiswal, son of Mansharam.

4. The investigation of the case was initially assigned to Inspectors Krishna Kumar Mishra and Sanjay Maurya. Following their transfer, the investigation was conducted by the petitioner from

20.08.2020 to 10.08.2021. During the course of the investigation, on 12.12.2020, the names of seven persons including Nanhku came to light on the basis of collection of some evidence. As a result, the charge under Section 302 I.P.C. was dropped whereas during investigation, Section 460 I.P.C. came to be added.

5. It is further stated that one of the accused, Nanhku alias Satguru Prasad, who was also named in F.I.R. No. 364/2019 under Sections 457/380 I.P.C., had already been arrested on 09.01.2020 and was lodged in District Jail, Barabanki. However, the petitioner allegedly implicated Nanhku in connection with the incident of F.I.R. No. 56/2020 dated 10.02.2020 without verifying the fact that Nanhku was in judicial custody on the said date.

6. A preliminary enquiry was earlier conducted by the then Circle OfÏcer, Fatehpur, Shri Yogendra Kumar, who submitted the preliminary enquiry report in May 2022. Subsequently, on the basis of the said report, a show cause notice dated

09.01.2023 was issued to the petitioner under Rule 14(2) of the U.P. Police OfÏcers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1991"). Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his explanation/ reply to the show cause notice on

24.01.2023 and pleaded not guilty. The impugned punishment order dated 28.02.2023 was thereafter passed against the petitioner, whereby a punishment of censure entry was awarded to him.

7. Feeling aggrieved by the said punishment order, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was rejected by the appellate order dated

19.09.2023. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a revision petition dated 10.10.2023, which was also rejected by means of revisional order dated

21.03.2024.

8. The U.P. State Public Services Tribunal, Indira Bhawan, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") while dealing with the issue, relied upon the statements of relevant witnesses and taking cognizance of the relevant facts, held that the procedure provided under the Rules had been duly followed by the Disciplinary Authority. It further found that the punishment order had been passed after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and was a reasoned and speaking order. Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition preferred by the petitioner.

9. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition assailing the judgment and order dated 24.03.2025 passed by the Tribunal as well as the punishment order dated

28.02.2023.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had submitted his reply dated

24.01.2023 to the show cause notice dated

09.01.2023 and without considering the reply of the petitioner as also without assigning any reason for rejection of the same, the impugned punishment order dated 28.02.2023 has been passed by the disciplinary authority. He further submits that impugned order of punishment is non speaking and not in accordance with the provisions of Rules, 1991. Thus, the same deserves to be set aside.

11. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents has vehemently argued that a minor punishment has been awarded to the petitioner in accordance with the procedure laid down under Rule 14 (2) of 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 09.01.2023 was duly issued to the petitioner and after considering the reply of the petitioner dated 24.01.2023, the order of punishment dated

28.02.2023 was rightly passed. Therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment and order dated 24.03.2025 passed by the Tribunal.

12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties in light of rival submissions advanced by them, we find that the petitioner was holding a responsible post as he was posted as Sub Inspector. He was Investigating OfÏcer of the case concerned. It is no more res integra that it is the duty of the Investigating OfÏcer to elicit truth. While doing so, he is not supposed to act mechanically. Thus, it was the petitioner's responsibility and duty to act diligently and in accordance with the law. He was expected to verify the presence of the accused Nanhku at the scene of the incident, obtain the CDR (Call Detail Records) of his mobile phone, examine his criminal history, and confirm whether he was in jail on the date of the incident. However, no such steps were taken during the investigation under the petitioner’s supervision. This conduct on the part of the petitioner prima facie amounts to gross negligence, arbitrariness, act of indifference and misconduct in discharge of ofÏcial duties.

13. In the present case, it is abundantly clear that the petitioner has been awarded minor punishment after giving him the show cause notice dated 09.01.2023 and after considering the reply submitted by him and the Tribunal has considered each aspect of the facts related to the controversy and on the said basis, therefore, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by the Tribunal.

14. In view of the aforesaid overall discussion, we are of the considered view that there is no illegality in the impugned judgment and order dated 24.03.2025 passed by the Tribunal and thus, the writ petition, being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed, which is, accordingly, dismissed.

15. There shall be no order as to cost. (Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.) (Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.) Order Date :- 21.5.2025/Mahesh/Shubhankar SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

3. The brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner is a government servant who is presently working as an Inspector at the Reserve Police Lines, Ayodhya. It is alleged that when the petitioner was posted as In-charge Inspector at Police Station Ramnagar, District Barabanki, an F.I.R. bearing No. 56/2020 under Section 302 I.P.C. against unknown persons was registered on

10.02.2020, based on a written complaint by the informant, Shri Rakesh Jaiswal, son of Mansharam.

4. The investigation of the case was initially assigned to Inspectors Krishna Kumar Mishra and Sanjay Maurya. Following their transfer, the investigation was conducted by the petitioner from

20.08.2020 to 10.08.2021. During the course of the investigation, on 12.12.2020, the names of seven persons including Nanhku came to light on the basis of collection of some evidence. As a result, the charge under Section 302 I.P.C. was dropped whereas during investigation, Section 460 I.P.C. came to be added.

5. It is further stated that one of the accused, Nanhku alias Satguru Prasad, who was also named in F.I.R. No. 364/2019 under Sections 457/380 I.P.C., had already been arrested on 09.01.2020 and was lodged in District Jail, Barabanki. However, the petitioner allegedly implicated Nanhku in connection with the incident of F.I.R. No. 56/2020 dated 10.02.2020 without verifying the fact that Nanhku was in judicial custody on the said date.

6. A preliminary enquiry was earlier conducted by the then Circle OfÏcer, Fatehpur, Shri Yogendra Kumar, who submitted the preliminary enquiry report in May 2022. Subsequently, on the basis of the said report, a show cause notice dated

09.01.2023 was issued to the petitioner under Rule 14(2) of the U.P. Police OfÏcers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1991"). Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his explanation/ reply to the show cause notice on

24.01.2023 and pleaded not guilty. The impugned punishment order dated 28.02.2023 was thereafter passed against the petitioner, whereby a punishment of censure entry was awarded to him.

7. Feeling aggrieved by the said punishment order, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was rejected by the appellate order dated

19.09.2023. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a revision petition dated 10.10.2023, which was also rejected by means of revisional order dated

21.03.2024.

8. The U.P. State Public Services Tribunal, Indira Bhawan, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") while dealing with the issue, relied upon the statements of relevant witnesses and taking cognizance of the relevant facts, held that the procedure provided under the Rules had been duly followed by the Disciplinary Authority. It further found that the punishment order had been passed after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and was a reasoned and speaking order. Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition preferred by the petitioner.

9. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition assailing the judgment and order dated 24.03.2025 passed by the Tribunal as well as the punishment order dated

28.02.2023.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had submitted his reply dated

24.01.2023 to the show cause notice dated

09.01.2023 and without considering the reply of the petitioner as also without assigning any reason for rejection of the same, the impugned punishment order dated 28.02.2023 has been passed by the disciplinary authority. He further submits that impugned order of punishment is non speaking and not in accordance with the provisions of Rules, 1991. Thus, the same deserves to be set aside.

11. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents has vehemently argued that a minor punishment has been awarded to the petitioner in accordance with the procedure laid down under Rule 14 (2) of 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 09.01.2023 was duly issued to the petitioner and after considering the reply of the petitioner dated 24.01.2023, the order of punishment dated

28.02.2023 was rightly passed. Therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment and order dated 24.03.2025 passed by the Tribunal.

12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties in light of rival submissions advanced by them, we find that the petitioner was holding a responsible post as he was posted as Sub Inspector. He was Investigating OfÏcer of the case concerned. It is no more res integra that it is the duty of the Investigating OfÏcer to elicit truth. While doing so, he is not supposed to act mechanically. Thus, it was the petitioner's responsibility and duty to act diligently and in accordance with the law. He was expected to verify the presence of the accused Nanhku at the scene of the incident, obtain the CDR (Call Detail Records) of his mobile phone, examine his criminal history, and confirm whether he was in jail on the date of the incident. However, no such steps were taken during the investigation under the petitioner’s supervision. This conduct on the part of the petitioner prima facie amounts to gross negligence, arbitrariness, act of indifference and misconduct in discharge of ofÏcial duties.

13. In the present case, it is abundantly clear that the petitioner has been awarded minor punishment after giving him the show cause notice dated 09.01.2023 and after considering the reply submitted by him and the Tribunal has considered each aspect of the facts related to the controversy and on the said basis, therefore, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by the Tribunal.

14. In view of the aforesaid overall discussion, we are of the considered view that there is no illegality in the impugned judgment and order dated 24.03.2025 passed by the Tribunal and thus, the writ petition, being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed, which is, accordingly, dismissed.

15. There shall be no order as to cost. (Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.) (Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.) Order Date :- 21.5.2025/Mahesh/Shubhankar SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench