Ved Ram (Pno-902330784) v. State Public Service Tribunal Thru. Its Chairman Lko. And 4 Others

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Shikhar Anand, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and learned Standing Counsel, who appears on behalf of respondent nos.2 to 5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent no. 5, Senior Superintendent of Police, Gautambudh Nagar issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 24.02.2018 levelling charges against him for negligence in the performance of his duties and calling upon him to submit a reply within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said show-cause notice. The petitioner submitted his explanation, but without considering the same, respondent no. 5 passed a non-speaking and unreasoned punishment order dated 12.12.2018, awarding a censure entry to the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order dated 12.12.2018 before respondent no. 4, Inspector General of Police, Meerut Range, Meerut, which was rejected by the appellate authority on 06.06.2019. Against the punishment order and the appellate order, the petitioner preferred a revision before respondent no. 3, Additional Director General of Police, Meerut Zone, Meerut, which was also rejected on 06.07.2020. It has also been submitted that against the aforesaid punishment order, appellate order, and revisional order, the petitioner filed Claim Petition No. 1543 of 2020 before respondent no.1, State Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow. Respondent no. 1 dismissed the said claim petition on 01.06.2022, against which petitioner filed Review Petition No. 55 of 2022, which was also rejected by respondent no. 1 on 13.05.2024. 2 WRIA No. 12522 of 2025 It has further been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that none of the authorities concerned considered the explanation given by the petitioner regarding the delay in approaching the Office of the Chief Standing Counsel at Allahabad High Courtfor filing the counter affidavit. The authorities have treated the bona fide delay as intentional and holding the petitioner negligent in the performance of his duties, awarded him a censure entry. It is the case of the petitioner that on 01.04.2008, he was working as Sub- Inspector at Police Station Rabupura, District Gautambudh Nagar, when he was deputed to file an affidavit in a petition filed before the Allahabad High Court relating to Case Crime No. 2 of 2017, under Sections 367, 302, and 201 I.P.C. He was relieved from the police station on 04.05.2017 to report to the Office of the Chief Standing Counsel at Allahabad High Court. However, while proceeding to Allahabad on 06.05.2017, his mobile phone got misplaced in the Civil Lines area, Allahabad. As a result, he could neither contact Police Station- Rabupura, District Gautambudh Nagar nor the Office of the Chief Standing Counsel at Allahabad High Court. He lodged an F.I.R. regarding the loss of his mobile phone at Police Station Civil Lines, Allahabad on 08.05.2017. In the meantime, the Office of the Chief Standing Counsel/Government Advocate, Allahabad High Court, contacted Police Station-Rabupura, District Gautambudh Nagar, regarding non-receipt of instructions from the concerned police station and the urgency in the matter relating to the filing of the affidavit on behalf of the State-respondents. Consequently, another Sub-Inspector, namely, Shri Naresh Bahadur, was deputed to the Office of the Government Advocate for filing the affidavit on behalf of the State- respondents. A show-cause notice was thereafter issued to the petitioner in this regard, to which he submitted his explanation within time indicating the correct facts about the misplacement of his mobile phone and his consequent inability to contact either the Office of the Government Advocate or his police station. However, the said explanation was not considered by respondent no. 5 and a censure entry was awarded to the petitioner. Neither the appellate authority nor the revisional authority considered the explanation furnished by the petitioner. Even the Tribunal, while passing its order, failed to take into account the explanation submitted by the petitioner. 3 WRIA No. 12522 of 2025 This Court, having gone through the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal and having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length, has perused the annexures to the writ petition. It is not clear at what time of the day the petitioner lodged the F.I.R. at Police Station Civil Lines, Allahabad, on 08.05.2017, when his mobile phone was allegedly misplaced on 06.05.2017. The petitioner, being a Sub- Inspector holding a responsible post, did not attempt to contact his Police Station Rabupura, District Gautambudh Nagar either on 06.05.2017,

07.05.2017, or even on 08.05.2017 to inform them about the loss of his mobile phone. It is a matter of common knowledge that several public telephones are available in the Civil Lines area, Allahabad. The petitioner, having been relieved on 04.05.2017 from District Gautambudh Nagar and having reached the Civil Lines area, Allahabad on

06.05.2017, did not make any attempt to contact the Office of the Government Advocate either on 06.05.2017, 07.05.2017, or even on

08.05.2017, though he was physically present at Allahabad. Even if his mobile phone had been misplaced, he could have contacted the Office of the Government Advocate personally and handed over the instructions, which had already been sent in time by Police Station Rabupura, District Gautambudh Nagar, as he had been relieved from there on 04.05.2017 itself. Moreover, in the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the authorities, there is no mention of the date and time of the F.I.R. allegedly lodged on

08.05.2017 regarding loss of his mobile phone, owing to which he failed to contact the authorities or the Office of the Government Advocate at Allahabad High Court. We do not find any good ground to warrant interference in the impugned orders. The writ petition stands dismissed. October 28, 2025 Mahesh (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) MAHESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Shikhar Anand, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and learned Standing Counsel, who appears on behalf of respondent nos.2 to 5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent no. 5, Senior Superintendent of Police, Gautambudh Nagar issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 24.02.2018 levelling charges against him for negligence in the performance of his duties and calling upon him to submit a reply within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said show-cause notice. The petitioner submitted his explanation, but without considering the same, respondent no. 5 passed a non-speaking and unreasoned punishment order dated 12.12.2018, awarding a censure entry to the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order dated 12.12.2018 before respondent no. 4, Inspector General of Police, Meerut Range, Meerut, which was rejected by the appellate authority on 06.06.2019. Against the punishment order and the appellate order, the petitioner preferred a revision before respondent no. 3, Additional Director General of Police, Meerut Zone, Meerut, which was also rejected on 06.07.2020. It has also been submitted that against the aforesaid punishment order, appellate order, and revisional order, the petitioner filed Claim Petition No. 1543 of 2020 before respondent no.1, State Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow. Respondent no. 1 dismissed the said claim petition on 01.06.2022, against which petitioner filed Review Petition No. 55 of 2022, which was also rejected by respondent no. 1 on 13.05.2024. 2 WRIA No. 12522 of 2025 It has further been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that none of the authorities concerned considered the explanation given by the petitioner regarding the delay in approaching the Office of the Chief Standing Counsel at Allahabad High Courtfor filing the counter affidavit. The authorities have treated the bona fide delay as intentional and holding the petitioner negligent in the performance of his duties, awarded him a censure entry. It is the case of the petitioner that on 01.04.2008, he was working as Sub- Inspector at Police Station Rabupura, District Gautambudh Nagar, when he was deputed to file an affidavit in a petition filed before the Allahabad High Court relating to Case Crime No. 2 of 2017, under Sections 367, 302, and 201 I.P.C. He was relieved from the police station on 04.05.2017 to report to the Office of the Chief Standing Counsel at Allahabad High Court. However, while proceeding to Allahabad on 06.05.2017, his mobile phone got misplaced in the Civil Lines area, Allahabad. As a result, he could neither contact Police Station- Rabupura, District Gautambudh Nagar nor the Office of the Chief Standing Counsel at Allahabad High Court. He lodged an F.I.R. regarding the loss of his mobile phone at Police Station Civil Lines, Allahabad on 08.05.2017. In the meantime, the Office of the Chief Standing Counsel/Government Advocate, Allahabad High Court, contacted Police Station-Rabupura, District Gautambudh Nagar, regarding non-receipt of instructions from the concerned police station and the urgency in the matter relating to the filing of the affidavit on behalf of the State-respondents. Consequently, another Sub-Inspector, namely, Shri Naresh Bahadur, was deputed to the Office of the Government Advocate for filing the affidavit on behalf of the State- respondents. A show-cause notice was thereafter issued to the petitioner in this regard, to which he submitted his explanation within time indicating the correct facts about the misplacement of his mobile phone and his consequent inability to contact either the Office of the Government Advocate or his police station. However, the said explanation was not considered by respondent no. 5 and a censure entry was awarded to the petitioner. Neither the appellate authority nor the revisional authority considered the explanation furnished by the petitioner. Even the Tribunal, while passing its order, failed to take into account the explanation submitted by the petitioner. 3 WRIA No. 12522 of 2025 This Court, having gone through the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal and having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length, has perused the annexures to the writ petition. It is not clear at what time of the day the petitioner lodged the F.I.R. at Police Station Civil Lines, Allahabad, on 08.05.2017, when his mobile phone was allegedly misplaced on 06.05.2017. The petitioner, being a Sub- Inspector holding a responsible post, did not attempt to contact his Police Station Rabupura, District Gautambudh Nagar either on 06.05.2017,

07.05.2017, or even on 08.05.2017 to inform them about the loss of his mobile phone. It is a matter of common knowledge that several public telephones are available in the Civil Lines area, Allahabad. The petitioner, having been relieved on 04.05.2017 from District Gautambudh Nagar and having reached the Civil Lines area, Allahabad on

06.05.2017, did not make any attempt to contact the Office of the Government Advocate either on 06.05.2017, 07.05.2017, or even on

08.05.2017, though he was physically present at Allahabad. Even if his mobile phone had been misplaced, he could have contacted the Office of the Government Advocate personally and handed over the instructions, which had already been sent in time by Police Station Rabupura, District Gautambudh Nagar, as he had been relieved from there on 04.05.2017 itself. Moreover, in the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the authorities, there is no mention of the date and time of the F.I.R. allegedly lodged on

08.05.2017 regarding loss of his mobile phone, owing to which he failed to contact the authorities or the Office of the Government Advocate at Allahabad High Court. We do not find any good ground to warrant interference in the impugned orders. The writ petition stands dismissed. October 28, 2025 Mahesh (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) MAHESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench