Uttarakhand High Court
2026:Uhc:3109-Db vs State Of on 24 April, 2026
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Pankaj Purohit
2026:UHC:3109-DB
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
WPSB/61/2024
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
1 Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.
2. Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent.
3. State has filed this writ petition challenging judgment dated 15.12.2022 passed by learned Uttarakhand Public Services Commission in Claim Petition No. 121/NB/SB/2021 (Gopal Ram vs State of Uttarakhand & others). By the said judgment, claim petition filed by respondent, challenging the punishment of censure given by Senior Superintendent of Police, Udham Singh Nagar vide order dated 21.09.2019 was set aside and the orders passed by Appellate Authority & Revisional Authority were also set aside.
4. A show cause notice was issued to respondent on 31.07.2019 by SSP, Udham Singh Nagar based on a preliminary enquiry report submitted by Circle Officer, Rudrapur City, whereby respondent was called upon to show cause as to why punishment of censure be not imposed upon him. The allegation against the respondent was that a video recording was provided to Constable - Mr. Navin Chandra, in which respondent was found receiving two Five Hundred Rupee notes from driver of a vehicle which was lying seized at Police Station Pant Nagar, District Udham Singh Nagar.
5. Respondent in his reply stated that since the truck was lying seized in the police station for last five days and the driver of that truck had run out of money, therefore, he had provided him ₹1,000/- for food etc., 2026:UHC:3109-DB which was being returned by the driver, as seen in the video recording.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent refers to the order passed by Punishing Authority on 21.09.2019 for contending that the reply submitted by respondent was dealt with, with total non-application of mind; the punishment of censure was imposed merely because in the preliminary enquiry report, the Circle Officer had held petitioner guilty.
7. The reasoning given by learned Tribunal for allowing the Claim Petition is extracted below:-
"14 .....The Enquiry Officer ever after recording a finding that the video forwarded by the Complainant is not clear and the voice was also not even, then petitioner was held guilty of receiving 1000/- rupees as illegal gratification from the drivers. These truck drivers were the key witnesses from whom the alleged illegal gratification is said to have been taken by the petitioner, have not been examined during the inquiry. The punishment has been imposed upon the petitioner only on the ground that the he is seen in the video taking money from the drivers, but the Authorities have failed to take into consideration the fact that the Preliminary Enquiry Officer has observed that the video clip is not clear. The alleged video clip could not prove that the petitioner has demanded illegal money from the truck drivers and thus there was no reason and evidence before the Preliminary Enquiry Officer and Authorities to disbelieve the defence taken by the petitioner. Perusal of the orders impugned in the Claim Petition show that none of the authorities have given any reason for not accepting the defence taken by the petitioner before the Preliminary Enquiry Officer, more particularly when the Complainant has specifically stated that he was not aware of the true fact of the case. The allegation against the petitioner is that he has demanded the money for releasing the vehicles from the drivers of the two seized trucks. The trucks drives should have also been examined during the inquiry to come to the true conclusion, which has not been done in the instant case. The petitioner was wrongly held guilty of taking illegal money from the drivers on the basis of which alleged video clip. The orders impugned in the Claim Petition are not sustainable for the reason that the same are perverse, inasmuch as, the same are based on the Preliminary Enquiry Report and in the Preliminary Enquiry Report there is no evidence against the petitioner to hold him guilty of the charge levelled against him. The impugned orders are not sustainable for the reason that the same are based on conjecture and not on the basis of any reliable evidence inasmuch as there is no iota of 2026:UHC:3109-DB evidence against the petitioner and are liable to be quashed.
15. Accordingly, the claim petition is allowed. The impugned punishment orders dated 21.09.2019, 04.01.2020 and 23.03.2021 passed by respondents are hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to expunge the censure entry awarded to the petitioner, which 30 days from passing of this order. No order as to costs. "
8. Learned State Counsel submits that learned Tribunal dealt with the matter as if a major punishment was imposed upon the respondent. He submits that Rules contemplate separate procedure for major penalty and minor penalty. He submits that Rule 14(1) of U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 lays down the procedure which is to be followed where major penalty is proposed to be imposed, and Rule 14(2) of the said Rules lays down the minor penalty procedure. Rules 14(1) and 14(2) of U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 are extracted below:-
"14. Procedure for conducting departmental proceedings.-(1) Subject to the provisions contained in these Rules, the departmental proceedings in the cases referred to in sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 against the police officers may be conducted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Appendix I. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
rule (1) punishments in cases referred to in sub- rule (2) of Rule 5 may be imposed after informing the police officer in writing of the action proposed to be taken against him and of the imputations of act or omission on which it is proposed to be taken and giving him a reasonable opportunity of making such representation as he may wish to make against the proposal"
9. Admittedly, show cause notice was issued to respondent, as per Rule 14(2) of the aforesaid Rules, which lays down minor penalty procedure, and minor penalty was imposed upon the respondent, therefore, 2026:UHC:3109-DB the view taken by learned Tribunal that driver of the truck and other witnesses were required to be examined, during disciplinary enquiry, is not correct. Minor punishment imposed upon a subordinate police officer cannot be interfered with merely because the witnesses were not examined, especially when Rule 14(2) of the aforesaid Rules is invoked in the matter. Examination of witnesses to bring home the charge against a police officer is required only in cases where major penalty procedure, prescribed in Rule 14(1) read with Appendix-I of the aforesaid Rules, is followed.
10. Since major penalty procedure was not followed and Competent Authority had indicated his intention of imposing punishment of censure since beginning, therefore, the punishment imposed upon respondent cannot be termed as illegal only on the ground that witnesses were not examined to prove the charges.
11. Thus, we do not approve of the reasoning given by learned Tribunal for allowing the claim petition. However, from perusal of punishment order dated 21.09.2019, it is revealed that punishment of censure was imposed upon respondent, based only on the preliminary enquiry report submitted by Circle Officer, Rudrapur, and the Punishing Authority failed to consider, with open mind, the reply to the show cause notice submitted by petitioner, therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we decline to interfere with the judgment rendered by learned Tribunal.
12. Punishment given by Disciplinary Authority, without considering the reply to the show cause notice submitted by concerned employee, is unsustainable. The purpose of issuing show cause notice is to provide opportunity of hearing to the employee upon whom a punishment is proposed to be imposed.
2026:UHC:3109-DB
13. If the reply given in response to show cause notice is not considered and punishment order is passed without application of mind, then the very purpose of issuing show cause notice is defeated and it becomes empty formality. The Disciplinary Authority has not indicated any reason for disbelieving the defence taken by respondent in his reply.
14. In the present case, respondent had taken the defence that the driver was returning the money which respondent had lent to him, however, that aspect was not dealt with by Disciplinary Authority while passing the impugned order and punishment was imposed merely because the Circle Officer who held preliminary enquiry had opined that respondent is prima facie guilty. We, therefore, decline to interfere with impugned judgment.
15 For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 24.04.2026 Aswal NITI RAJ SINGH Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08b08d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, ASWAL serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F4610C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2026.04.29 04:21:29 -07'00'