Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 303 (UTT)

Bache Singh Bisht v. State of Uttarakhand

2023-05-12

RAKESH THAPLIYAL, VIPIN SANGHI

body2023
JUDGMENT : Vipin Sanghi, J. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to seek the following reliefs:- “1. Issue a writ, order or rule in the nature of certiorari calling for records and quashing – (a) inquiry report dated 7-3-2019, order dated 9-6-2020 passed by SSP Udham Singh Nagar, order dated 30-12-2020 passed by respondent no. 3, being WITHOUT JURISDICTION (b) judgment and order dated 17-3-2023 passed by learned public service tribunal camp at Nainital in claim petition no. 72/NB/SB/2022. 2. Issue a writ, order, rule or direction to the respondent to give all benefits to the petitioner which were not given due to the impugned orders passed by authorities i.e. promotion etc. 3. To issue any other suitable order or direction which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. To award the cost of the application in favour of the applicant, otherwise the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury.” 2. The brief background of facts is that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the year 1990. He was promoted to the post of Sub Inspector in the year 2008. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Udham Singh Nagar with issuance of a Show Cause Notice on 04.05.2019. The petitioner replied to the said Show Cause Notice, whereafter the Senior Superintendent of Police, Udham Singh Nagar imposed a minor penalty of censure upon the petitioner on 09.06.2020. The petitioner was aggrieved by the said minor penalty and he preferred a statutory Appeal before the Appellate Authority, i.e. the Inspector General of Police. That, too, was rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a writ petition, being Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1625 of 2022 before this Court. However, this Court did not entertain the writ petition leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal. Consequently, the petitioner preferred a claim petition before the Uttarakhand Public Service Tribunal, Bench at Nainital being Claim Petition No. 72/NB/SB/2022. The said Claim Petition was rejected by the impugned order dated 17.03.2023. The issue raised by the petitioner against the imposition of minor penalty of censure upon him was that the Senior Superintendent of Police was not competent to subject the petitioner to the said penalty. The said Claim Petition was rejected by the impugned order dated 17.03.2023. The issue raised by the petitioner against the imposition of minor penalty of censure upon him was that the Senior Superintendent of Police was not competent to subject the petitioner to the said penalty. The case of the petitioner was that under the Police Regulations, which have been adopted by the State of Uttarakhand, Regulation 406 (a) provides that inter alia, Sub Inspectors are appointed by the Deputy Inspector General. The submission of the petitioner was that consequently, the Senior Superintendent of Police was not competent either to initiate the disciplinary proceedings or to punish the petitioner. The further submission of the petitioner was that under the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991, which have been adopted by the State of Uttarakhand, the punishments are described in Rule 4 and the powers of punishment are prescribed in Rule 7. Rules 4 and 7 of the said Rules read as follows:- “4. Punishment.—(1) The following punishments may, for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided, be imposed upon a Police Officer, namely:- (a) Major Penalties.— (i) Dismissal from service. (ii) Removal from service. (iii) Reduction in rank including reduction to a lower-scale or to a lower stage in a time scale. (b) Minor penalties.— (i) With-holding of promotion. (ii) Fine not exceeding one month’s pay. (iii) With-holding of increment, including stoppage of an efficiency bar. (iv) Censure. (2) In addition to the punishments mentioned in sub-rule (1) Head Constables and Constables may also be inflicted with the following punishments:- (i) Confinement to quarters (this item includes confinement to Quarter Guard for a term nor exceeding fifteen days extra guard or other duty). (ii) Punishment Drill not exceeding fifteen days. (iii) Extra guard duty not exceeding seven days. (iv) Deprivation of good conduct pay. (3) In addition to the punishments mentioned in sub-rules (1) and (2) Constables may also be punished with Fatique duty, which shall be restricted to the following tasks: (i) Tent pitching; (ii) Drain diggning; (iii) Cutting grass, cleaning jungle and picking stones from parade grounds; (iv) Repairing huts and butts and similar work in the lines; (v) Cleaning Arms.” 7. (3) In addition to the punishments mentioned in sub-rules (1) and (2) Constables may also be punished with Fatique duty, which shall be restricted to the following tasks: (i) Tent pitching; (ii) Drain diggning; (iii) Cutting grass, cleaning jungle and picking stones from parade grounds; (iv) Repairing huts and butts and similar work in the lines; (v) Cleaning Arms.” 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. (2) The Superintendent of Police may award any of the punishments mentioned in sub-clause (iii) of clause (a) and clause (b) sub-rule (1), of Rule 4 on Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors. (3) The Superintendent of Police may award any of the punishments mentioned in Rule 4 on such police officers as are below the rank of Sub-Inspectors. (4) Subject to the provisions contained in these rules all Assistant Superintendents of Police and Deputy Superintendents of Police who have completed two years of service as Assistant Superintendents of Police and Deputy Superintendents of Police as the case may be, may exercise powers of Superintendent of Police except the powers to impose major punishments under Rule 4. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules Reserve Inspector, Inspector of Station Officer may award the punishment of drill and fatigue duty to any constable under his charge for a period not exceeding three days, but he shall inform the Superintendent of Police concerned of his order immediately and in any case within 24 hours of passing the order.” 3. The submission of Mr. Dobhal, learned Senior Counsel, is that it is the Deputy Inspector General of Police, who is empowered to impose any punishment on any officer of the police department prescribed in Rule 4. Moreover, Senior Superintendent of Police may award, inter alia, minor punishments under Rule 4(1)(b). According to him, he is not empowered to impose punishment of censure. It is further argued premised on Rule 7(3) that Senior Superintendent of Police is empowered to impose penalties only upon officers below the rank of Sub-Inspectors. 4. We have considered the submissions of Mr. Dobhal, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record. We do not find any merit in any of his submissions. 5. It is further argued premised on Rule 7(3) that Senior Superintendent of Police is empowered to impose penalties only upon officers below the rank of Sub-Inspectors. 4. We have considered the submissions of Mr. Dobhal, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record. We do not find any merit in any of his submissions. 5. The statutory Rules of 1991 clearly set out in Rule 4 the major and minor penalties. Major penalties have been enumerated in Rule 4(1)(a), which are- (i) Dismissal from service; (ii) Removal from service and; (iii) Reduction in rank including reduction to a lower-scale or to a lower stage in a time scale. Rule 4(1)(b) enlists the four minor penalties, namely (i) With-holding of promotion; (ii) Fine not exceeding one month’s pay; (iii) With-holding of increment, including stoppage at an efficiency bar and; (iv) Censure. Sub rule (1) of Rule 7 authorises the DIG to impose any of the major or minor penalties on any police officer. Sub Rule (2) of Rule 7 authorises the Superintendent of Police to award firstly the punishment stipulated in sub-clause (iii) of clause (a), which is “Reduction in rank including reduction to a lower-scale or to a lower stage in a time scale.”-which is a major penalty, and any of the minor penalties, which are enumerated in clause (b) of Rule 4(1) on Inspectors and Sub Inspectors. Therefore, the Superintendent of Police cannot impose any of the major penalties, except the major penalty enumerated in sub-clause (iii) of Rule 4(1)(a) of the said Rules on Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors or police officers of higher ranks. However, he is empowered to impose one major penalty enumerated in sub-clause (iii) of Clause (a) of Rule 4(1), and any of the minor penalties enumerated in Rule 4(1)(b). 6. Since the penalty imposed upon the petitioner was a minor penalty, which is ‘Censure’ and is enlisted at Serial No. (iv) of Rule 4(1)(b), it is clear that the Senior Superintendent of Police had the authority to impose the said penalty upon the petitioner. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that there is no merit in the present writ petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.