JUDGMENT 1. This claim petition has been filed by Head Constable (P) Jaipal Singh s/o Sri Shukhbeer Singh, G.R.P., Haridwar against the punishment order no D-32/ 2004 dated 17.8.2004 awarding censure entry to the petitioner (Annexure-6) and appellate order dated 20.4.2005 (Annexure-8) . 2. The fact of the case are that S.S.P, Haridwar assigned the enquiry against the petitioner to C.O. Luxor who conducted a preliminary enquiry. This preliminary enquiry was regarding the criminal case No. 178/02 U/S 323, 324,504,506 in which petitioner is said to have acted negligently. The enquiry officer recommended action against the petitioner and S1 Ram Avatar Sankhwar under Rule 14 (2) of the U.P. Subordinate officers (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. The petitioner had recom-mendation filing the F.R. on the basis of merit after investigation. This recommended was withheld by the C.O., Luxor and the investigation was transferred to SI Ram Avatar Sankhwar for reinvestigation in his report, SI Sri Ram Avatar Sankhwar also recommended filing of ER. The reinvestigation was further, transferred to Head Constable Rishipal Singh and thereafter to Head Constable Dheeraj Pal Singh, who submitted the charge sheet in the case. The petitioner was served a show cause notice on 24.7.2004 proposing censure entry (annexure-4). The petitioner made representation (Annexure-5), but the same was rejected by respondent No-2 and censure entry was made against the petitioner. The appeal (Annexure-7) filed was also rejected on 20.4.2005. The revision against the appellate order (Annexure-9) is still pending for disposal. 3. The petitioner takes the ground that impugned order is arbitrary and prejudiced. It violates the prescribed procedure and is liable to be quashed. The petitioner was not afforded opportunity of cross-examination of the witnesses and examines the evidence which was read against him. Therefore, the preliminary enquiry is against the principles of natural justice. The enquiry was conducted by the C.O. Luxor who himself was party in the case as he withheld the final report proposed by the petitioner. The Final Report recommended by the subsequent investigating officer, SI Sri Ram Avatar Shankhwar supported the report of the petitioner and there was no reason to doubt the veracity of the said F.R. 4. In the W.S. by the respondents, it is stated that the petition is against section-5 of the P.S.T. Act. The appeal against the impugned order was disposed of, but no revision was filed for next one year. In the W.S. by the respondents, it is stated that the petition is against section-5 of the P.S.T. Act. The appeal against the impugned order was disposed of, but no revision was filed for next one year. Hence the petition is time barred and not maintainable. The C.O., Luxor was directed to dispose of the application of the petitioner as the S.S.p, is senior most officers in Haridwar. The investigation by the petitioner was faulty and hence reinvestigation was assigned to Head Constable Rishipal Singh who submitted the charge sheet. The censure entry was awarded to the petitioner for negligence in investigation after due departmental proceedings. The appeal has been disposed of after due consideration of facts and no revision is pending with the department. The petitioner cannot be declared innocent merely on the basis of report by SI, Ram Avatar Shankhwar. The negligence of SI, Ram Avatar Shankhwar in investigation has been noticed and he too has been punished. The claim petition is therefore without merit and deserves to be rejected. 5. In the R.A., the petitioner has reiterated the version of claim petition and states that the accused have been exonerated by the judicial magistrate. Thus petitioner's action of putting up F.R has been validated, The claim petition therefore, deserves to be allowed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.O. for the respondents. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had submitted revision application before the Additional Director General of Police, Dehradun. The same has not been decided and he has perforce come to seek the relief from this Tribunal by way of this claim petition. It is also stated by him that all opportunities• and remedy available to petitioner have been exhausted before filing the claim petition. It is also submitted that, by the impugned order of censure entry, it is clear that procedure of investigation adopted by the competent, authority is misplaced. The petitioner carried out investigation in the manner laid down in para 107 of Police Regulations and having investigated the event, he had recommended for final report. There is no statement, whatsoever to state that the petitioner has not followed that provisions of para 107 of the Police Regulations and therefore, the impugned order is uncalled for. The petitioner carried out investigation in the manner laid down in para 107 of Police Regulations and having investigated the event, he had recommended for final report. There is no statement, whatsoever to state that the petitioner has not followed that provisions of para 107 of the Police Regulations and therefore, the impugned order is uncalled for. It is further submitted that subsequently the case was investigated by two head constables namely Sri Rishi Pal Singh and Sri Dheeraj Pal Singh. The petitioner was also head constable and entrusting the investigation so the similar rank officer is against the law. The investigation should have been conducted by the officer senior to the rank of the head constables and not by the same rank officer. He also submitted that Sub-Inspector, Ram Avatar Shankhwar also conducted the investigation in the same matter and he too recommended for filing the final report in this case. Somehow, the recommendation of the senior officer for filing F.R.was not accepted and two junior officers namely; Sri Rishi Pal Singh and Sri Dheeraj Pal Singh were given the responsibility from time to time. This is against the laid down norms of getting investigation done by the superior rank officer if the investigation is not accepted by the competent authority on merit. The recommendation of S.I., Sri Ram Avatar Shankhwar was similar i.e. the recommendation of filing F.R. The investigation by the junior rank officer goes to suggest that the convenient conclusions were obtained by superior officers to nail down the petitioner. Therefore, on this ground also the petition deserves to get suitable relief, Finally, it was submitted by the learned counsel For the petitioner that in his appeal dated 1.8.2004; he categorically made his submission that on the basis of outcome of the proceedings in the competent court, the action may be taken against the petitioner. This was not accepted by the competent authorities. In the final outcome of the court proceedings, the civil judge/ judicial magistrate, Luxor has discharged all the accused persons which goes to suggest that the recommendation of the petitioner for filing F.R. was a correct conclusion. He cannot therefore, be punished on that account also. 8. In reply, learned A.P.O. stated that the appeal was decided way back in 2005, but the petitioner even after limitation period of one year did not file any revision. He cannot therefore, be punished on that account also. 8. In reply, learned A.P.O. stated that the appeal was decided way back in 2005, but the petitioner even after limitation period of one year did not file any revision. Therefore, it is not correct to state that the petitioner has exhausted all the remedies and the petition is not maintainable. He subsequently referred para 4.05 of R.A stating that the revision has not been received by the department and' petitioner's contention of submitting the revision is baseless and misplaced. It was also submitted by learned A.P.O. that as per provisions of Rule 14(2) of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991, the due procedure has been followed by the department before passing the impugned order. There is no infirmity in the impugned order whatsoever and petitioner got the full opportunity to defend himself. He now cannot seek the relief not admissible to him. He therefore, pleaded that the claim petition deserves to be dismissed. Learned A.P.O. admitted that SI Sri Ram Avatar Shankhwar did conduct the investigation in the matter, but he too was found negligent in the investigation and similar punishment was awarded to him (para 5.7 of the W.S). Therefore, the petitioner cannot draw parallel to the recommendation of SI Sri Ram Avatar Shankhwar and seek relief from this Tribunal without any ground. The petitioner has failed to prove his innocence on this ground also. 9. It is admitted fact that investigation was initially entrusted to the petitioner. Subsequently it seems that the same investigation was given to SI Sri Ram Avatar Shankhwar and further, the same investigation was given to head constable Sri Rishi Pal Singh and Sri Dheeraj Pal Singh, The recommendations of the petitioner and SI Sri Ram Avatar Shankhwar for filing F.R. were obviously not accepted by the competent authority, but no reasons for is were recorded. The investigation later on was carrid out separately by two other head constables named above. The impugned order does not state fact that investigation was given to Sri Ram Avatar Shankhwar also and why his report was not accepted. On the other hand, the name of the Sri Dheeraj Pal Singh has been recorded to state that investigation was completed by him. The impugned order does not state fact that investigation was given to Sri Ram Avatar Shankhwar also and why his report was not accepted. On the other hand, the name of the Sri Dheeraj Pal Singh has been recorded to state that investigation was completed by him. There is no reason stated in the impugned order and in any other papers filed by the respondents stating that there was sufficient reasons to state that investigation carried out by the petitioner as well as by Sri Ram Avatar Shankhwar was violative of the procedure laid down in para 107 of the Police Regulation. The propriety demanded from superior officers that investigation should be carried out by the superior officer to the petitioner and in any case not by subordinate officers once the recommendation of SI level officer have been received. It was procedurally incorrect for the department to entrust the investigation on 3rd occasion to the head constable after second investigation report of SI Sri Ram Avatar Shankhwar was received. The procedure adopted smacks of the bias against the petitioner for which he stands to get relief. 10. So far as the limitation and related points made by the learned A.P.O. are concerned, it is true that there is no mode of service available on file regarding service of revisional application by the petitioner. It is also true to state that petitioner has filed revision if any, after maximum limitation of one year. But it is to be stated that claim petition is being decided on merit and that the petitioner was aware of the judicial proceedings in the same matter were under consideration in the competent court at Luxor. Therefore, the matter being sub-judice, he may not have filed revision application. On account of same matter being under consideration in the competent court of law he can be entitled to claim the benefit of limitation. The point of maintainability therefore, is not acceptable and is decided against the respondents. 11. In so far as the outcome of the judicial proceedings is concerned. The petitioner has no right to get the benefit as no observations whatsoever have been made by the learned judge against the petitioner or about investigation conducted by the petitioner. Therefore, irrespective of the outcome by the judicial proceeding it does not give any benefit to the petitioner. 12. The petitioner has no right to get the benefit as no observations whatsoever have been made by the learned judge against the petitioner or about investigation conducted by the petitioner. Therefore, irrespective of the outcome by the judicial proceeding it does not give any benefit to the petitioner. 12. In view of the fact that the procedural deviation was made by the respondents in entrusting enquiry to a junior officer and further in view of the outcome of the court proceedings, it is clear that the investigations were carried out as per the best capability' of the petitioner within the provisions of para 107 of the Police Regulations and he cannot be faulted for any lacunae in the investigation. The assignment of investigation to different officials was merely to obtain convenient conclusions. As such passing the blame on the petitioner in the garb of negligence smacks of arbitrariness on the part of the respondents. The bias of respondents prohibits the petitioner to defend himself in suitable manner. It is also true that a revision application should have been preferred, but there is no necessity to discus whether it was preferred or not in view of admission by the learned A.P.O. for adjudication of the claim petition on merit. It is sufficient to presume that available opportunity was exhausted. The petitioner has conclusively proved that the bias operated against him and he was denied the benefit of maniples of natural justice. To some up, the petitioner has successfully proved the bias against him and the claim petition deserves to succeed. 13. In the light of discussion above, the claim petition succeeds and the impugned orders are hereby set aside as non-existent