Tarun Kumar Shukla v. Sharan

Chaubey, Abha Srivastava, Amitesh Mishra, Atul Kumar, Utkarsh Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Court No. - 2 HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State Respondent.

This petition has been filed with the following main prayer:- "Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby setting-aside of the impugned judgement and order dated 22.09.2025 passed by learned State Pubic Servies Tribunal, Indira Bhawan, Lucknow (hereinafter referred as Learned Tribunal) i.e. opposite party no.1 containe as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, in the interest of justice. "

It has been submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that as is evident from a perusal of the Punishment Order, the allegation against the petitioner is of being directed orally to conduct the investigation in Case Crime No.292 of 2023, where three Investigating Officers had already conducted the investigation and made some progress and that he had refused to take up such investigation and, therefore, it was eventually to Sub Inspector Ganesh Kumar, who completed assigned investigation and submitted the chargesheet in Court. 2 WRIA No. 13463 of 2025

It has been submitted that the practice usually followed in Police Stations is for giving a written order assigning investigation. In this case during the preliminary enquiry, the complainant i.e. the In-Charge Police Inspector of P.S. Khesraha, District Siddharth Nagar, was unable to show any written order made out in the name of the petitioner to conduct the investigation in Case Crime No.26 of 2024, therefore, it shall be presumed that in fact no assignment was done in his name and the In- Charge Sub Inspector of Police Station Khesraha made a false complaint.

We have gone through the censure entry and the misconduct that is being complained of and also the preliminary enquiry report. We have also gone through the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the Show Cause Notice issued to him by the Superintendent of Police Siddharth Nagar.

It is his case that he was already conducting investigation in four matters which were assigned to him in Case Crime No.292 of 2023, in Case Crime No.44 of 2024, in Case Crime No.48 of 2024 and in Case Crime No.51 of 2024, where he had completed the investigation in time as was required under the Police Regulations and submitted his report. It was incorrect to say that petitioner was conducting only one investigation at the time when he was offered investigation of Case Crime No.26 of

Having gone through the preliminary enquiry report and the censure entry as also the order passed by the learned Tribunal, we find that there was no procedural illegality in conducting the enquiry for imposition of minor penalty as notice was issued to the petitioner only under Rule 14(2) imposing minor penalty, thereafter preliminary enquiry report is made available. A Show-Cause Notice is issued to the delinquent employee asking for his explanation.

In the case of the petitioner, the petitioner does not deny that he was given a copy of the preliminary enquiry report along with the statements of the departmental witnesses and that he thereafter submitted his reply/ explanation to the Show Cause Notice.

Having gone through the explanation of the petitioner and the 3 WRIA No. 13463 of 2025 punishment order impugned, we are of the opinion that the order of the Tribunal needs to be modified to the extent that instead of dismissal of the claim petition, it shall be treated as disposed of with a direction to the Superintendent of Police Siddharth Nagar to consider the explanation of the petitioner given in pursuance of the preliminary enquiry report and show-cause notice issued to him, and to pass a reasoned and speaking order thereon within a period of two months from the date a copy of this order is produced before him.