Kamlendra Pratap Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Yogesh Gupta, Advocate holding brief of Shri Shikhar Anand, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and learned Standing Counsel, who appears on behalf of State- respondents No.1, 3, 4, 5.

2. This petition has been filed with the following prayers :- "(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 21.03.2025 passed by the opposite party No.2 as well as punishment order dated 29.08.2023 passed by the opposite party No.5 and consequential appellate order dated 03.10.2023 passed by the opposite party No.4 and revisional order dated 23.03.2024 passed by the opposite party No.3 contained in Annexure No.1, 2, 3 and 4 to this writ petition. (ii) Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the circumstances of the case. (iii) Allow the writ petition with costs."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, prays that he may be allowed to renumber the annexures to the writ petition, as due to clerical mistake, Annexure-3 has been filed as Annexure-9 and Annexure-9 has been filed as Annexure-3. He may make such correction today during the course of the day.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that while working as Constable on 2 WRIA No. 12902 of 2025

15.05.1999 and after qualifying the departmental examination in the year 2018, he was promoted as Sub Inspector and posted at District Deoria. He was working satisfactorily as Sub Inspector at Police Station Motipur, District Bahraich, at the time of the alleged incident wherein the allegation was that on 27/28.04.2003, a missing report had been received at Police Station Khairighat, but the police officials present in the police station delayed the registration of the F.I.R. A preliminary enquiry was initiated, in which the enquiry officer recorded the statements of all concerned employees and submitted an enquiry report on 15.05.2023 alleging that although the petitioner conducted an enquiry/investigation, he did not give any written report to the Station House Officer/Police Station In-charge, hence, there was a delay in registration of F.I.R.

5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that on the date of the report being submitted in the police station concerned, the SHO/In- charge, Durg Vijay Singh was looking after the police station. He handed over the application to Head Constable, Amrendra Maurya and Amrendra Maurya handed over such application to the petitioner. The petitioner along with one Constable Umang Gautam and the complainant Mandla Devi went to the complainant's village and made an enquiry. Thereafter, he orally informed the SHO/In-charge about the situation. However, such oral conversion was not recorded anywhere, which resulted in the delay in lodging of the F.I.R.

6. It has further been submitted that the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 18.07.2023, to which he replied on 09.08.2023 stating that he had conducted the enquiry as directed by Durg Vijay Singh and had orally apprised him of his findings. Such findings, however, were not recorded anywhere and the petitioner has been made a scapegoat. The respondent No.5 did not consider the petitioner's reply and passed the impugned punishment order awarding a censure entry to the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal before the respondent No.4, which was also rejected on

03.10.2023, against which he filed a revision that was rejected by Additional Director General of Police, Gorakhpur Zone, Gorakhpur (respondent No.3) on 23.03.2024. Aggrieved by the punishment order, the appellate order and the revisional order, the petitioner filed a claim petition before the respondent No.2, State Public Service Tribunal, Indira Bhawan, Lucknow in 3 WRIA No. 12902 of 2025 the Claim Petition No.995 of 2024, which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 21.03.2025 ignoring the repeated submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner that he had conducted the enquiry and orally informed Digvijay Singh of the result, but the same was not taken into account.

7. We have gone through the impugned order of the Tribunal, the Tribunal has considered the reply of the petitioner in paragraph 8, wherein there is an admission that, on oral instruction, he conducted the enquiry. No written orders were issued to him to conduct the enquiry; therefore, he did not give any written report. He stated that ordinarily, all work done in a police station is carried out on oral instructions and only when written directions are passed are they formally recorded.

8. It is evident that the learned Tribunal has found that the petitioner did not inform the station in-charge on his own about the result of the enquiry. He may have told the result of the enquiry to somebody else, but this laxity on the part of the petitioner resulted in the belated registration of the F.I.R. in the case.

9. With regard to the argument raised by the counsel for the petitioner concerning that non-supply of relevant documents with the show cause notice, the Tribunal has found that from the annexures to the claim petition itself that the show cause notice indicated that it enclosed therewith a copy of the preliminary enquiry report. Insofar as the circular dated 06.09.2019 is concerned, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice along with a copy of the preliminary enquiry report, requiring him to submit his reply. Reasonable opportunity of defence was given to the petitioner; therefore, there was no procedural irregularity in recording the punishment order.

10. We do not find there being any factual or legal infirmity in the order of the Tribunal.

11. The writ petition stands dismissed. (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) November 6, 2025 Shubhankar SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Yogesh Gupta, Advocate holding brief of Shri Shikhar Anand, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and learned Standing Counsel, who appears on behalf of State- respondents No.1, 3, 4, 5.

2. This petition has been filed with the following prayers :- "(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 21.03.2025 passed by the opposite party No.2 as well as punishment order dated 29.08.2023 passed by the opposite party No.5 and consequential appellate order dated 03.10.2023 passed by the opposite party No.4 and revisional order dated 23.03.2024 passed by the opposite party No.3 contained in Annexure No.1, 2, 3 and 4 to this writ petition. (ii) Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the circumstances of the case. (iii) Allow the writ petition with costs."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, prays that he may be allowed to renumber the annexures to the writ petition, as due to clerical mistake, Annexure-3 has been filed as Annexure-9 and Annexure-9 has been filed as Annexure-3. He may make such correction today during the course of the day.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that while working as Constable on 2 WRIA No. 12902 of 2025

15.05.1999 and after qualifying the departmental examination in the year 2018, he was promoted as Sub Inspector and posted at District Deoria. He was working satisfactorily as Sub Inspector at Police Station Motipur, District Bahraich, at the time of the alleged incident wherein the allegation was that on 27/28.04.2003, a missing report had been received at Police Station Khairighat, but the police officials present in the police station delayed the registration of the F.I.R. A preliminary enquiry was initiated, in which the enquiry officer recorded the statements of all concerned employees and submitted an enquiry report on 15.05.2023 alleging that although the petitioner conducted an enquiry/investigation, he did not give any written report to the Station House Officer/Police Station In-charge, hence, there was a delay in registration of F.I.R.

5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that on the date of the report being submitted in the police station concerned, the SHO/In- charge, Durg Vijay Singh was looking after the police station. He handed over the application to Head Constable, Amrendra Maurya and Amrendra Maurya handed over such application to the petitioner. The petitioner along with one Constable Umang Gautam and the complainant Mandla Devi went to the complainant's village and made an enquiry. Thereafter, he orally informed the SHO/In-charge about the situation. However, such oral conversion was not recorded anywhere, which resulted in the delay in lodging of the F.I.R.

6. It has further been submitted that the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 18.07.2023, to which he replied on 09.08.2023 stating that he had conducted the enquiry as directed by Durg Vijay Singh and had orally apprised him of his findings. Such findings, however, were not recorded anywhere and the petitioner has been made a scapegoat. The respondent No.5 did not consider the petitioner's reply and passed the impugned punishment order awarding a censure entry to the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal before the respondent No.4, which was also rejected on

03.10.2023, against which he filed a revision that was rejected by Additional Director General of Police, Gorakhpur Zone, Gorakhpur (respondent No.3) on 23.03.2024. Aggrieved by the punishment order, the appellate order and the revisional order, the petitioner filed a claim petition before the respondent No.2, State Public Service Tribunal, Indira Bhawan, Lucknow in 3 WRIA No. 12902 of 2025 the Claim Petition No.995 of 2024, which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 21.03.2025 ignoring the repeated submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner that he had conducted the enquiry and orally informed Digvijay Singh of the result, but the same was not taken into account.

7. We have gone through the impugned order of the Tribunal, the Tribunal has considered the reply of the petitioner in paragraph 8, wherein there is an admission that, on oral instruction, he conducted the enquiry. No written orders were issued to him to conduct the enquiry; therefore, he did not give any written report. He stated that ordinarily, all work done in a police station is carried out on oral instructions and only when written directions are passed are they formally recorded.

8. It is evident that the learned Tribunal has found that the petitioner did not inform the station in-charge on his own about the result of the enquiry. He may have told the result of the enquiry to somebody else, but this laxity on the part of the petitioner resulted in the belated registration of the F.I.R. in the case.

9. With regard to the argument raised by the counsel for the petitioner concerning that non-supply of relevant documents with the show cause notice, the Tribunal has found that from the annexures to the claim petition itself that the show cause notice indicated that it enclosed therewith a copy of the preliminary enquiry report. Insofar as the circular dated 06.09.2019 is concerned, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice along with a copy of the preliminary enquiry report, requiring him to submit his reply. Reasonable opportunity of defence was given to the petitioner; therefore, there was no procedural irregularity in recording the punishment order.

10. We do not find there being any factual or legal infirmity in the order of the Tribunal.

11. The writ petition stands dismissed. (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) November 6, 2025 Shubhankar SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench