Allahabad High Court
Manju Devi Police Sub Inspector vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Home ... on 15 September, 2022
Author: Rajnish Kumar
Bench: Rajnish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4991 of 2017 Petitioner :- Manju Devi Police Sub Inspector Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Home Deptt.Civil Sectt.Lko.Andors Counsel for Petitioner :- Sabir Ali Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.
1. Heard Shri Sabir Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Saurabh Kumar Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel.
2. By means of the instant writ petition the petitioner has assailed the order dated 30.04.2013, by means of which the punishment of censure entry has been awarded to the petitioner and the order dated 22.08.2013 by means of which the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.
3. The sole argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned orders are not sustainable because for the same allegation the petitioner was disqualified for being promoted as Ranker Sub Inspector (Civil Police) on the ground that during written examination held on 13.03.2011, the petitioner had talked on her mobile phone, though it was prohibited to be kept in the the examination hall and the said order was quashed by this Court at Allahabad.
4. Learned Standing Counsel, vehemently, opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. He submitted that the said case was in regard to the written examination held on 13.03.2011, for promotion as Ranker Sub Inspector (Civil Police) whereas the impugned order has been passed in regard to the written examination held on 13.11.2011, when the departmental examination was held for promotion. In the present case, after the preliminary inquiry, the allegations have been found proved against the petitioner and accordingly after issuing a show cause notice and considering the explanation of the petitioner, the punishment of censure entry has been awarded. The appeal has also been dismissed after considering the grounds raised by the petitioner. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders.
5. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the record.
6. The petitioner, who is working on the post of Sub Inspector (Civil Police), appeared in the written examination for promotion as Ranker Sub Inspector (Civil Police) on 13.03.2011. By means of the order dated 19.09.2011, passed by one of the member of the Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment & Promotion Board, Lucknow, the petitioner alongwith others were disqualified on the ground that during the course of written examination held on 13.03.2011, the petitioner had talked on her mobile phone, though it was prohibited to be kept in the examination hall. The petitioner and others had challenged the said order before this Court at Allahabad in different writ petitions. Writ-A No.56812 of 2011; Head Constable Vijay Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and Others was allowed by means of the judgment and order dated 08.05.2012 on the ground that the impugned order was passed without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner and in violation of principles of natural justice. A finding was also recorded in the said order that since the mobile phone was prohibited to be taken in the examination hall and the invigilator had not complained that there was any violation on the part of the petitioner, therefore, merely because some talks were made from the said mobile phone, it can not be said that the mobile phone was with the petitioner. It was also considered in the said order that the Board consists of more than one members and only one member was not competent to take decision on behalf of the Board regarding disqualification of candidate. The writ petition filed by the petitioner bearing Writ-A No.57088 of 2012; H.C. Manju Devi Vs. State of U.P. and Others was also allowed by means of the order dated 08.03.2012 in view of the aforesaid judgment and order dated 08.05.2012.
7. The impugned order has been passed in regard to the departmental written examination held on 13.11.2011 for promotion on the post of Ranker Sub Inspector (Civil Police). A preliminary enquiry was conducted in the matter and it was found that the petitioner had taken mobile phone in the examination hall, though it was prohibited and the petitioner had used the mobile phone as an unfair means in the examination. In regard to which, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner which was received by the petitioner on 13.02.2013. The petitioner had submitted his explanation on 18.03.2013. After considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner the censure entry has been awarded to the petitioner by means of the impugned order dated 30.04.2013. Therefore, it can not be said that for the same allegation on which the petitioner was disqualified in the examination held on 13.03.2013, a fresh punishment order has been passed. The petitioner had filed an appeal which has also been considered and rejected. In the impugned order, it has also been recorded that Sub Inspector (Civil Police) Narendra Singh Sirohi had got the papers solved by calling to the petitioner on her mobile phone from his mobile phone and it has been confirmed by Shri Mangre Prasad and Shri Mani Ram and Sub Inspector Chandra Prakash Singh, who were giving examination alongwith the petitioner.
8. In view of above, this Court is of the view that the ground taken by the petitioner is misconceived and not tenable. The punishment order and the appellate orders have rightly been passed. There is no illegality or error in them. The writ petition lacks merit.
9. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.
.
.............................................................(Rajnish Kumar,J.) Order Date :- 15.9.2022 Haseen U.