Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 733 (ALL)

Sub Inspector Sanjay Kumar v. State of U. P.

2022-05-09

J.J.MUNIR, RAJESH BINDAL

body2022
ORDER : 1. This is an appeal by the petitioner of Writ Appeal No. 830 of 2022, impugning the order of the learned Single Judge dated 23.03.2022, dismissing the writ petition. 2. The appellant is a Sub-Inspector of Police, who was promoted from the ranks in the year 2013. He is posted at Police Station Hanumanganj, District Kushinagar. Like other Sub-Inspectors, he was entrusted with investigation of criminal cases, numbering 30, until July, 2021. Out of these 30, the appellant completed investigation into a total of 16, submitting a report in Court. Apparently, the other cases remained pending, where the investigation was not concluded. 3. On the 9th September, 2021, the Chief Minister issued directions to the higher officials of the Police to review law and order in different districts and find out whether investigation in accordance with law is being completed. The higher officials examined records of different police stations across the State. It is asserted by the petitioner that in twelve different districts, they found criminal cases where the investigation has not been completed and cases were pending with the Police. The petitioner was posted, as already said, at Police Station Hanumanganj, District Kushinagar on 18.03.2021 and the scrutiny by the higher officials found the ratio of completion of investigations in the district to be poor. The superior police officials directed the district-level police officials to submit a detailed report along with names of Investigating Officers, who had not done investigation and submitted a police report before the Court concerned within time. The higher officials also asked from each of the twelve under-performing districts in the matter of investigation, the names of three Sub-Inspectors/Inspectors (Investigating Officers), who had done the minimum number of investigations. Their names, rank and place of posting were all required to be intimated to the Additional Director General of Police (Crimes). In fact, it was the Additional Director General of Police aforesaid who furnished the individual details of three Investigating Officers from each district to the Government vide his letter dated 26.09.2021. 4. The appellant was identified in District Kushinagar as one of the three Investigating Officers, who had done the minimum number of investigations and he was reported to the Government. It appears that for the aforesaid under-performance in his investigative duties, he was given a warning on 7th March, 2022 by the Superintendent of Police of Kushinagar. 4. The appellant was identified in District Kushinagar as one of the three Investigating Officers, who had done the minimum number of investigations and he was reported to the Government. It appears that for the aforesaid under-performance in his investigative duties, he was given a warning on 7th March, 2022 by the Superintendent of Police of Kushinagar. On the report submitted to the Government, the order impugned dated 16th November, 2021 came to be passed, awarding the appellant a censure entry. The appellant challenged the order dated 16th July, 2021 passed by the State Government before this Court by means of Writ Appeal No. 830 of 2022. The aforesaid writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 23.03.2022. 5. Disillusioned, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 6. We have heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Ankit Gaur, learned State Law Officer on behalf of the respondents. 7. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the order impugned has been passed without affording the appellant any opportunity of hearing. He submits that a censure entry is after all one of the minor penalties contemplated under Rule 4(1)(b)(iv) of The Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short ‘the Rules’) which have adverse civil consequences. The order, therefore, impugned before the learned Single Judge could not have been made without opportunity. 8. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the Government have no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order, which vests in the Deputy Inspector General of Police. 9. Learned Counsel for the State has supported the impugned order and submitted that it was passed after due opportunity of hearing. 10. Upon considering the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for parties and perusing the order impugned, besides the material on record, we do not find any merit in this appeal. 11. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the order impugned was passed without opportunity is not borne out by the record. 10. Upon considering the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for parties and perusing the order impugned, besides the material on record, we do not find any merit in this appeal. 11. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the order impugned was passed without opportunity is not borne out by the record. In fact, a perusal of the order impugned shows that after identifying the three Investigating Officers in each of the twelve districts, who had done the least number completed investigations, their explanations were sought through the Additional Director General of Police (Crimes) and after securing explanations from each of the Investigating Officers concerned, these were placed before the Government. The learned Counsel for the appellant has not been able to demonstrate from any material that his explanation was not secured or considered by the Government before the impugned order was passed. In the case of a minor penalty envisaged under Rule 4(1)(b)(iv) of the Rules, all that is required is that the Police Officer concerned is to be informed in writing about the action proposed to be taken and imputations of the act or omission, on which the action is proposed, giving him reasonable opportunity of making a representation against the proposed action. This is all that is required under Rule 14(2) of the Rules, in case where a minor penalty is imposed. No elaborate procedure of holding an inquiry is required in the case of a minor penalty, as is the case when major penalty is imposed. 12. To our mind, therefore, there was sufficient compliance with the requirement of putting the appellant to notice about the imputation that constituted the omission on his part, where-against he was given an opportunity to furnish his explanation that was placed before the Government and duly considered by them before making the order impugned. 13. So far as the question of jurisdiction is concerned, it is true that any punishment, including minor penalties, can be imposed upon a police officer by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police, but Rule 7 of the Rules clothes the Government in the first place with the power to punish a police officer of the subordinate rank under the Rules. In this connection, Rule 7(1) of the Rules may be quoted with profit: “7. In this connection, Rule 7(1) of the Rules may be quoted with profit: “7. Powers of punishment: (1) The Government or any officer of police department not below the rank of the Deputy Inspector General may award any of the punishments mentioned in Rule 4 on any Police Officer.” 14. It is, therefore, evident that the Government have jurisdiction under the Rules to punish a police officer of the subordinate rank like the appellant and no issue about the jurisdiction or lack of authority can, therefore, be validly raised. 15. The learned Counsel for the appellant also endeavoured to dispute the correctness of the imputations about acts of omissions that are the basis of action against him by reference to details of his duty during the relevant period of time that prevented him from concluding the investigation. Those issues are purely factual in nature and cannot be gone into by this Court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Learned Counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any procedural flaw or infirmity, vitiating the impugned order or any illegality, that may render it unsustainable. 16. In the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is unexceptionable. 17. The appeal fails and is dismissed. 18. There shall be no order as to costs.