Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 701 (ALL)

Sanjeev Kumar Tomar v. State of U. P.

2024-03-05

DONADI RAMESH, VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA

body2024
JUDGMENT Donadi Ramesh, J. Heard Sri. Sudhanshu Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Sri. S.P.S. Chauhan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, who is also present and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 9.8.2021 passed by State Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh in Claim Petition No. 925/2021. 3. The petitioner filed the Claim Petition No. 925/2021 before the State Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh challenging the punishment order dated 23.10.2020 passed by Senior Superintendent of Police, District Agra. By the said order, punishment of censure/adverse entry, has been provided to the petitioner under the provisions of Rule 4 (1) (b) (iv) of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rule, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the Rule, 1991). Against the said order, petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent no.4 i.e. Inspector General of Police, Agra Range Agra, District Agra under Rule 20 of the Rule, 1991. the same was also dismissed vide order dated 19.12.2020. Against the same, he preferred a revision before respondent no.3, which was also dismissed vide order dated 22.04.2021. Left with no option, the said orders were assailed before the State Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. 5. The petitioner was appointed as Sub-Inspector in the year 1995 under the Dying-in-Harness Rules in the U.P. Police Department, Uttar Pradesh. After completing necessary training, the petitioner was posted as Sub-Inspector in the U.P. Police Department and thereafter, he was promoted on the post of Inspector in the year 2015. The petitioner has completed 25 years of service in the U.P. Police Department. The petitioner was discharging his duties with utmost satisfaction of the higher authorities but surprisingly an order has been issued by the respondents on 23.10.2020 awarding minor punishment i.e. Censure/Adverse Entry as per the provisions of the Rule, 1991. 6. The said punishment was imposed against the petitioner on the ground of negligence, when he was posted at Inspector at Police Station Achhnera, District Agra. The case crime no. 6. The said punishment was imposed against the petitioner on the ground of negligence, when he was posted at Inspector at Police Station Achhnera, District Agra. The case crime no. 247/2019, under Section 364 IPC has been registered by Gyan Singh against the accused Yogesh and Rakesh at Police Station Achhnera and the petitioner had not coordinated with the counterpart posted at Police Station Tundla, District Firozabad in respect of the investigation of the abovesaid case crime number, in spite of repeated instruction by S.S.P. Agra and Circle Officer, Agra, the petitioner. 7. The petitioner was posted at Police Station Achhnera w.e.f. 5.10.2019 to 10.02.2020. The investigation of Case Crime No. 247/2019, under Section 302/201 IPC was conducted by the predecessor of the petitioner, i.e. the then Incharge Inspector Shri. Ajay Kaushal and the list of pending investigation, which was provided to the petitioner in which the pendency of investigation of the Case Crime No. 247/2019 was not mentioned. The earlier Incharge Inspector has sent a report to the higher authorities for transfer of the investigation of Case Crime No. 247/2019 to Police Station Tundla, District Firozabad as after the recovery of dead body of Devendra, another F.I.R. has been registered as Case Crime No.224/2019, under Section 302/201 IPC at Police Station Tundla, District Firozabad. The Circle Officer Achhnera, District Agra also submitted his report on 28.8.2019 and recommended to transfer the investigation of Case Crime No. 247/2019 to Police Station Tundla, District Firozabad along with Case Crime No. 224/2019. Based on the said report, Inspector General of Police, Agra Range Agra, vide his order dated 17.9.2019 directed for investigation of the aforesaid case from District Firozabad. As there was no S.R. File available in the office of Circle Officer Achhnera as a result since October, 2019, no letter or instruction was given by the Circle Officer to the petitioner for submitting any parcha of the case diary. Thus, the said investigation was not pending during the tenure of the petitioner either at Police Station Achhnera or at the District Agra. As per the orders issued by I.G. Agra Range Agra, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Agra sent a letter dated 22.9.2019 to the Superintendent of Police, Firozabad, whereby all the relevant papers relation to Case Crime No. 247/2019 were forwarded for further investigation by the Police Station Tundla District Firozabad. As per the orders issued by I.G. Agra Range Agra, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Agra sent a letter dated 22.9.2019 to the Superintendent of Police, Firozabad, whereby all the relevant papers relation to Case Crime No. 247/2019 were forwarded for further investigation by the Police Station Tundla District Firozabad. On that ground, the respondents have issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 11.9.2020 with the following allegations: 8. Denying the said allegations, the petitioner has submitted his reply within stipulated time on 16.10.2020, which reads as under: 9. It is submitted that without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, respondent no.5 has passed the order dated 23.10.2020, which is as under : 10. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has availed statutory remedy, but the respondents have not considered the grounds raised by the petitioner and the same was also dismissed. Hence, he preferred the claim petition before the State Public Service Tribunal, which was also dismissed without appreciating the facts in appropriate manner. 11. Though, the petitioner has not filed original application as well as reply to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents before State Public Services Tribunal. The Tribunal has extracted the content of the counter affidavit filed before it, which are as follows: "The respondents have refuted the claims of the petitioner. They have asserted that procedure laid down in respect of award of minor punishments, has been duly followed in the present matter and hence, there is no procedural infirmity. They have stated that in-spite of the repeated instructions of superior officer, the petitioner did not coordinate with his counterpart in Police Station Tundla of District Firozabad about investigation of case crime No. 247/2019. The investigation remained pending for 04 months and 08 days before action could be initiated. The petitioner did not contradict the charges leveled against him about failure to coordinate with PS Tundla and hence his reply was found satisfactory. Petitioner was given full opportunity to defend himself and the order of punishment was issued only after considering all the facts on record. All the averments of the petitioner in his reply were considered and it was found that since he had not met the charges leveled against him the charges there was no reason to accept his defence. Petitioner was given full opportunity to defend himself and the order of punishment was issued only after considering all the facts on record. All the averments of the petitioner in his reply were considered and it was found that since he had not met the charges leveled against him the charges there was no reason to accept his defence. The respondents have submitted that there is no infirmity in the matter and the punishment order does not warrant any intervention. " 12. Based on the above pleadings, learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly contended that the punishment order dated 23.10.2020 is unreasoned and non-speaking. Though, the respondents have imposed minor punishment but they have not followed procedure contemplated under the Rule, 1991. The very allegation made in the show cause notice against the petitioner is that he has not acted as per the instructions of S.S.P. Agra issued in his letter 20.11.2019 and also the instructions of Circle Officer Achhnera in his letters dated 26.11.2019, 18.12.2019, 26.12.2019, 10.02.2019 and 17.02.2019, but the petitioner has categorically submitted his reply on 16.10.2020 with specific stand that Sri. Ajay Kaushal, who was the previous Inspector, has not dispatched the report to higher authorities for transfer of the investigation of Case Crime No. 224/2019 registered at Police Station Tundla, District Firozabad on recovery of dead body of Devendra. Ajay Kaushal was the previous Inspector In-charge at P.S. Achhnera has not mentioned the case in the list of pending investigation provided to the petitioner and subsequently, on receipt of the letter from S.S.P. Agra dated 20.11.2019, the petitioner has made conversation with Inspector In-charge of P.S. Tundla, District Firozabad Sri. Gyanendra Kumar on telephone and further, he also made conversation with S.H.O. Tundla and he has been informed that charge-sheet in Case Crime No. 247/2019, Police Station Achhnera has been filed before C.J.M, Agra and transfer of charge-sheet before C.J.M, Firozabad requires direction of Hon'ble High Court, therefore, there is no possibility to carry out investigation from District Firozabad and the S.H.O. Tundla also informed that all the documents of the case has been dispatched form the office of S.S.P. |Firozabad to Inspector General of Police, Agra Range, Agra. Subsequently, the petitioner has taken the investigation vide C.D. No. 19 dated 5.2.2020 and raided the houses of the accused Guddu, Mahendra, Arvind and Rakesh r/o Raja Ka Taal, Police Station Tundla, District Firozabad but they could not trace out. In view of the said circumstances, there is no negligence on the part of the petitioner. Hence, requested to close the complaint. Despite the same, the respondents without considering the said submission made in his reply has passed the punishment order in a mechanical manner and the same is non-speaking. 13. Against the said punishment order, the petitioner has filed appeal as well as revision, which were also dismissed in a mechanical manner. The Tribunal has also dismissed the claim petition, which is illegal and arbitrary. 14. Based on the said averments, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the petitioner has submitted his specific reply denying the negligence on the part of the petitioner and has specifically stated that the earlier In-charge Inspector has not submitted the list of pending investigation including Case Crime No. 247/2019. Further, the petitioner has submitted his specific reply that immediately after the receipt of the letter from S.S.P. Agra, dated 20.11.2019, he made conversation with the In-chage Inspector, Tundla District Firozabad and further, he spoke to S.H.O. Tundla, which clearly indicates that as directed by the S.S.P. in his letter dated 20.11.2019, the petitioner has acted without any negligence and delay. But it was not appreciated by the respondents while passing the impugned order. Hence, it was requested to set aside the same. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the disciplinary authority should pass an order based on the material available on record by giving definite findings as departmental proceedings are quasi judicial in nature, the punishing authority shall required at its conclusion on the basis of some evidence. As in the instant case, no evidence to support the charges, hence, the penalty imposed against the petitioner is baseless. As in the instant case, no evidence to support the charges, hence, the penalty imposed against the petitioner is baseless. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in G. Valli Kumar v. Andhra Education Society 2010 (2) SCC 497 , which reads as under: "That the requirement of recording reasons by every quasi judicial or even an administrative authority entrusted with the task of passing an order adversely affecting an individual and communication thereof to the affected person is one of the recognized facets of the rules of natural justice and violation thereof has the effect of vitiating the order passed by the authority concerned. " 16. Further, learned counsel has submitted that the statutory duty has been passed on the appellate authority to consider the appeal and dealt with the points raised in the said appeal while passing an order in accordance with the requirements, but in the instant case the respondents have not considered the grounds raised in the appeal and revision. Hence, all the orders are non-speaking and are liable to be set aside. 17. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The very case in initiation of disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner is negligence on the part of the petitioner in compliance of the directions issued by the higher authorities. In the instant case, the notice clearly indicates that the S.S.P. has directed on 20.11.2019 to coordinate with Police Station Tundla, District Firozabad and take legal action but the same was not followed by him and no action was taken for about four months and eight days in the investigation of heinous offence like murder. Further, it is noted that the Inspector In-charge of Achhnera, District Agra was directed and also noted about the Circle Officer's letters dated 26.11.2019, 18.12.2019, 26.12.2019, 10.02.2019 and 17.02.2019, but surprisingly in the entire reply, the petitioner has not stated anything about the action taken by the letters of the Circle Officer. Even according to the reply, he never stated that he spoke to S.H.O. Tundla and In-charge Inspector, Tundla, District Firozabad, but on what dates, he made such conversation and how many time he spoke and what action taken, is silent in the said reply. 18. Even according to the reply, he never stated that he spoke to S.H.O. Tundla and In-charge Inspector, Tundla, District Firozabad, but on what dates, he made such conversation and how many time he spoke and what action taken, is silent in the said reply. 18. Further, on perusal of the punishment order passed by the S.S.P. Agra, and also the appellate order of Inspector General of Police, Agra clearly indicates that they have considered the grounds raised in the appeal and has given findings separately by the appellate authority. That clearly indicates that the appellate authority has considered the appeal more specifically on the grounds which were taken in the appeal and based on the record, the same was dealt and rejected. 19. Hence, the contentions raised by the petitioner has no merit as the very initiation of investigation based on the negligence, is a clearly a factual aspect, which was dealt by both the appellate and revisional authority. By considering the same, the State Public Service Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim petition. 20. We find no good grounds to interfere with the orders impugned herein. 21. The writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.