Uttarakhand High Court
Cp-06 Puran Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 19 September, 2018
Author: Alok Singh
Bench: Alok Singh
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No.714 of 2015 (S/S)
CP-06 Puran Singh ... Petitioner
vs
State of Uttarakhand & others ... Respondents
Present : - Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. M. S. Bisht, Brief Holder for the State/respondents.
Hon'ble Alok Singh, J.
1) By means of present writ petition, petitioner seeks to quash the impugned orders dated 22.5.2014, 24.07.2014 and 10.12.2014 (Annexure nos.2, 4 & 5 to the writ petition).
2) Brief facts of the case are that when the petitioner was posted as Constable in the Police Station Pancheshwar, District Champawat, an enquiry was initiated against him by the Superintendent of Police, Champawat. It was alleged that the petitioner went to the house of one Pitambar Ram, harassed him, demanded illegal gratification and misbehaved with him. On the basis of a preliminary enquiry report, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the Superintendent of Police, Champawat against the petitioner on 19.02.2014 asking him as to why an adverse entry be not awarded to him for sailing the reputation of police. In response thereto, he submitted his explanation dated 12.03.2014. Thereafter, the punishment order was passed against the petitioner on 22.05.2014. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal had been preferred by the petitioner before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, who, in turn, dismissed the appeal, vide order dated 24.07.2014. Aggrieved against the same, a revision was also preferred by the petitioner. The said 2 revision was also rejected. Hence, present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.
3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned orders were passed on the basis of conjectures and surmises; the complainant and his son had submitted an affidavit before the enquiry officer to the effect that the alleged complaint was made on the instigation of someone and there was no illegal demand of money from the side of petitioner, but the said affidavit has not been taken into consideration by the enquiry officer; the disciplinary authority has not properly considered the explanation submitted by the petitioner; and the impugned orders were passed in a mechanical manner.
4) On the other hand, learned State counsel supported the impugned orders and contended that the department has rightly passed the impugned orders.
5) In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, it would be appropriate to reproduce Rule 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), which reads as under : -
"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.3
(iii) With-holding of increment, including stoppage at 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 9 this term includes confinement to Quarter Guard for a term not 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 Fatigue duty, which shall be restricted to the following tasks:
(v) Tent pitching;
(vi) Drain digging;
(vii) Cutting grass, cleaning jungle and picking stones from parade grounds;
(viii) Repairing huts and butts and similar work in the lines;
(ix) Cleaning Arms."
6) Rule 5 of the Rules is extracted hereinbelow: -
"5. Procedure for award of Punishment.- (1) The cases in which major punishments enumerated in Clause (a) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 may be awarded shall be dealt with in accordance with the procedure laid down in Sub-rule (1) of Rule 14.
(2) The cases in which minor punishments enumerated in Clause (b) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 may be awarded, shall be dealt with in accordance with the procedure laid down in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 14.
(3) The cases in which minor penalties mentioned in Sub-
rules (2) and (3) of Rule 4 may be awarded shall be dealt with in accordance with the procedure laid down in Rule
15."
7) Rule 14 prescribes the procedure for conducting departmental proceedings, which reads as under:
4"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 1.
(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.
(3) The charged Police Officer shall not be represented by counsel in any proceedings instituted under these rules."
8) From perusal of the aforesaid Rules 4 & 5, it is clear that Rule 4 relates to the punishment and Rule 5 relates to the procedure for the purposes of awarding punishment and Rule 14 is relating to procedure for the purposes of conducting departmental proceedings. The petitioner was awarded a censure entry in his character roll, which comes under the category of 'minor penalty' as provided in clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 4. Under sub-rule (2) of Rule 14, it is provided that the 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 a reasonable opportunity of making a representation to the charged officer against the proposal of punishment should be given.
9) In the case in hand, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, pursuant to which, he had submitted his explanation and a reasonable opportunity was afforded to him to reply in his defence. Thus, it is clear that the aforesaid Rules were properly followed before awarding a minor punishment to the petitioner. Perusal of the record reveals that there was no violation of Rule 7 while awarding punishment to the petitioner, inasmuch as Rule 7 5 provides that 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.
10) Pursuant to the show cause notice, the petitioner submitted his explanation wherein photocopies of 3 affidavits of Pitamber Ram (complainant), Pawan Kumar and Kamla Kant Joshi were annexed. It was stated in the said affidavits that the alleged complaint was made on someone's instigation and there was no illegal demand of money from the side of petitioner and the complainant had no grievance / complaint against the petitioner. It has specifically been stated in para 8 of the counter affidavit that these affidavits were not duly certified/verified by the notary and the same were not submitted at the time of enquiry. In reply thereto, petitioner has filed the rejoinder affidavit, in which, there is no specific rebuttal on this point. Thus, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the submission of three affidavits in favour of the petitioner would not help him.
11) Moreover, when a complaint regarding unnecessary harassment of Pitamber Ram was received by the police, the Superintendent of Police, Champawat, vide order dated 16.01.2014 directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police to enquire into the matter confidentially. After conducting a confidential enquiry, the Deputy Superintendent of Police submitted its enquiry report dated 14.02.2014 along with evidence, in which, the petitioner was found guilty. On the basis of said enquiry report, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and, after giving reasonable opportunity of making a representation to the petitioner, a final order had been passed awarding a censure entry in the character roll of the petitioner. From the above, it is apparent that due process of law was 6 properly followed before giving a censure entry to the petitioner. There is no perversity and illegality in the impugned orders.
12) In view of above, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Alok Singh, J.) Dated 19th September, 2018 Rawat