Supreme Court of India
Sub Inspector Sanjay Kumar vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 27 September, 2024
Author: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
Bench: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
2024 INSC 745 NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(Civil) No(s). 12891 of 2022)
SUB INSPECTOR SANJAY KUMAR ..…APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
& ORS. ….RESPONDENT(S)
JUDGMENT
Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
3. The appellant herein, while being posted as Sub-Inspector at
Police Station Hanumanganj, District Khushinagar, Uttar Pradesh,
was condemned for gross negligence, indifference and selfishness
in discharge of duties vide office order dated 16th November, 20211
issued by the Additional Chief Secretary, Home (Police). As a
Signature Not Verified
consequence, he was handed down a penalty of censure vide letter
Digitally signed by
Indu Marwah
Date: 2024.09.27
18:43:29 IST
Reason:
1 In short ‘impugned order’.
1
dated 7th March, 2022 issued by the Superintendent of Police,
District Khushinagar.
4. The relevant part of the impugned order is reproduced
hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference: –
“Uttar Pradesh Government
Home (Police) Section-1
Number: U.O.-74(23)/6-P-1-21-107/2021
Lucknow: Date: 16 November 2021
Office Order
In the video conferencing held by the hon’ble Chief Minister on
dt. 09.09.2021, during the review of disposal of investigations
of state’s law and order, crimes, and the cases registered till dt.
31.07.2021, in the 12 districts which have disposed of the least
number of investigations, 03 sub-inspectors and inspectors
have been identified and after receiving their clarifications, the
investigating officers’ name, designation, current deployment
details/report, were made available by Addl. Director General
of Police (Crime), U.P., Lucknow vide letter number DG-7-S
2(1)/2021 dated 26.09.2021.
2- According to the clarification provided by the Addl. Director
of Police (Crime) U.P., Lucknow, Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Sub-
Inspector, ΡΝΟ-982650369, PS Hanumanganj, District
Khushinagar didn’t show the expected interest in the disposal
of investigations. This act is a sign of gross negligence,
indifference and selfishness while performing his duty and is
highly condemned.
S/d
illegible
(Avnish Kumar Awasthi)
Additional Chief Secretary
Number and Date as in:
2
Copy: Sent to the following for information and necessary
action: –
(1) Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow
(2) Additional Director Establishment, U.P., Lucknow General
of Police,(3) Additional Director General of Police, Police Headquarters,
U.P., Lucknow(4) Additional Director General of Police, Gorakhpur Zone,
Gorakhpur(5) Superintendent of Police, Dist. Khushinagar provided 03
copies with the intention of handing over 01 copy to Mr. Sanjay
Kumar, Sub- Inspector, PNO-982650369, PS Hanumanganj,
District Khushinagar and the receipt to be made available to
the government and censure to be mentioned in their character
record(6) Guard Book.
By Order,
S/d illegible
(Mahendra Prasad Bharti)
Joint Secretary”
5. The appellant preferred a writ petition2 before the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad assailing the impugned order and the
consequent censure entry made in his service book. The learned
Single Judge dismissed the writ petition denying relief to the
appellant vide order dated 23rd March, 2022. Being aggrieved, the
appellant preferred an intra-Court writ appeal3 which came to be
dismissed by the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court vide
2 Writ-A No. 830 of 2022.
3 Special Appeal (Defective) No. 150 of 2022.
3
judgment dated 9th May, 2022 which is assailed in the present
appeal by special leave.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant, vehemently and fervently
contended that no opportunity to show cause was ever afforded to
the appellant before imposing the penalty of censure upon him.
He urged that the impugned order and the consequent
communication issued by the Superintendent of Police, District
Khushinagar, are in clear breach of the provisions of the Uttar
Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and
Appeal) Rules, 19914 and also suffer from the vice of non-
adherence to the principles of natural justice.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant emphatically referred
to Rule 5 read with Rule 14(2) of the Rules, 1991 and urged that
no notice in writing was issued to the appellant before subjecting
him to the penalty of censure. It was submitted that specific plea
in this regard was incorporated in the pleadings before the learned
Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court.
However, the pertinent assertion which goes to the root of the
matter, was not considered by the High Court in the right
perspective. Learned counsel pointed out that the learned Single
4 In short ‘Rules, 1991’.
4
Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant merely by
recording oral instructions procured by the Standing Counsel for
the State and without even requiring the respondents to submit
their reply. Thus clearly, the decision on the writ petition was made
without the reply of the State being taken on record and hence, the
assertions made by the appellant remained uncontroverted.
8. Learned counsel further urged that the specific ground taken
by the appellant regarding the impugned order having been passed
without affording an opportunity to show cause or without giving
any opportunity to make representation against the same, has not
been traversed by the respondents in the counter affidavit filed in
this Court. He thus urged that the impugned order dated 16th
November, 2021 and the letter dated 7th March, 2022 suffers from
gross violation of the principles of natural justice and are de hors
the Rules, 1991 and consequently, the appellant deserves relief
sought for in the appeal.
9. Per-contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State,
vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by
the learned counsel for the appellant. He urged that the Chief
Minister of Uttar Pradesh, analysed the law and order situation in
different districts of the State while taking a review meeting with
5
the officials of the Home Department. The Chief Minister sought
information as to whether the investigations in accordance with
law were being carried out and duly completed by the concerned
police officials. As a consequence, the Additional Chief Secretary,
Government of Uttar Pradesh directed the Commissioners of
Police, Senior Superintendents and Superintendents of Police of
various districts of the State to submit detailed reports along with
the names of Investigating Officers, who had not completed the
investigations and/or submitted a police report before the Court
in time.
10. In pursuance of the aforesaid direction, the Circle Officer
Khadda, District Khushinagar issued a notice dated 25th
September, 2021 to the appellant seeking response on the issue of
long pendency of investigations assigned to him. The appellant
duly submitted his reply to the above notice sent by the Circle
Officer. As per learned counsel for the respondents, the reply
offered by the appellant was forwarded to the senior police officials
and was found to be unsatisfactory. Based on these
communications, the Additional Deputy General of Police prepared
a report furnishing the individual details of three erring
Investigating Officers from each district. The appellant was
6
identified as one of the slack Investigating Officers in the District
Khushinagar, Uttar Pradesh who had failed to complete the
minimum number of investigations and his name was included in
the detailed report, which was submitted to the Government.
Based on this report, the Additional Chief Secretary, Home (Police)
issued the impugned order dated 16th November, 2021,
condemning the appellant for gross negligence, indifference and
selfishness while performing his duties and not completing the
assigned investigations within the specified time frame.
11. In consequence of the above order, the Superintendent of
Police being the officer competent under the Rules, issued a
communication dated 7th March, 2022, whereby an adverse entry
was directed to be recorded in the appellant’s service book. The
learned counsel for the respondents fervently urged that it is
incorrect to say that the decision to record the censure entry was
taken without following the due process of law or without adhering
to the principles of natural justice.
12. We have heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel
for the parties at bar and have gone through the material placed
on record.
7
13. The short question requiring consideration is, whether the
direction to record the censure entry in the appellant’s service book
suffers from the vice of non-adherence to the principles of natural
justice and whether the said action is dehors the Rules, 1991.
14. The relevant rules of the Rules, 19915 which are germane to
the controversy at hand are reproduced hereinbelow: –
“Rule 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 at an
efficiency bar.
(iv) Censure.
Rule 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.
5 Ibid.
8
Rule 7- Powers of punishment
(1) The Government or any officer of police department not
below the ranks 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) of 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
punishments 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.
Rule 14 – Procedure for concluding departmental
proceedings
(l) 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.
(3) The charged police officer shall not be represented by
Counsel in any proceeding instituted under these Rules.”
(emphasis supplied)
9
15. Rule 4 of the Rules, 1991 prescribes the punishments which
can be awarded to the employees of the Police Department. Rules
5 and 14 prescribes the procedure to be followed prior to the award
of such punishment(s) and Rule 7 prescribes the authority
competent to impose the punishments. A bare perusal of the Rules
makes it clear that the minor penalties are provided in Rule 4(1)(b)
of the Rules, 1991 which includes censure, as awarded to the
appellant, and the procedure for awarding such minor penalties
has been set out in Rule 14(2) read with Rule 5(2) of the Rules,
1991.
16. Rule 14(2) read with Rule 5(2) of the Rules, 1991 provides
that the minor penalties as provided under Rule 4(1)(b) can be
imposed only after informing the delinquent 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.
17. At this juncture, it is pertinent to mention that in lieu of the
directions issued by the Additional Chief Secretary, Home (Police)
to prepare a report concerning the delinquent police officer(s) who
were not completing the investigation of their cases within the
10
specified time frame, the Circle Officer, Khadda, District
Khushinagar issued a notice dated 25th September, 2021 to the
appellant requiring him to furnish an explanation and show cause
regarding a long list of cases pending investigation with him. In
response to the above notice, the appellant furnished an
explanation to the Circle Officer, Khadda, District Khushinagar on
the very same day wherein he claimed that most of his time was
consumed in managing VIP duties and other external duties
assigned to him, and consequently, he could not complete the
investigation of 13 cases pending with him.
18. A detailed report with the names of three worst performing
Investigating Officers including that of the appellant was
forwarded to the Government through the Additional Director
General of Police. After going through the report, the Additional
Chief Secretary, Home (Police) issued the impugned order dated
16th November, 2021 noting the conduct of the appellant and
observing that he exhibited signs of gross negligence, indifference
and selfishness while performing the duties and that such conduct
was highly condemnable. The said order was forwarded to the
Superintendent of Police who passed the consequential order
11
dated 7th March, 2022 with a direction to record a censure entry
on the personal file of the appellant.
19. Rule 7(2) of the Rules, 1991, empowers the Superintendent
of Police to award the punishments under sub-clause (iii) of clause
(a) and clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 on Inspectors and Sub-
Inspectors. Therefore, without any doubt, the Superintendent of
Police was having the jurisdiction to award minor penalty of
censure to the appellant who was, at the relevant point of time,
posted as the Sub-Inspector of Police at Police Station
Hanumanganj, District Khushinagar, Uttar Pradesh.
20. Apparently thus, the censure entry directed to be recorded
vide letter dated 7th March, 2022, was awarded by the
Superintendent of Police, District Khushinagar, who was
competent to do so as per Rule 7(2) of the Rules, 1991. The order
dated 16th November, 2021 was passed by the Additional Chief
Secretary, Home (Police), after taking into consideration the entire
material on record including the detailed factual report forwarded
by the Additional Director General of Police which included the
explanation of the appellant and assigned reasons for reaching the
conclusion that the appellant did not show interest in the disposal
of the investigations which was treated to be a sign of gross
12
negligence, indifference and selfishness while performing duties
and was thus highly condemnable. Therefore, the contention
advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the censure
entry was directed to be recorded by an Officer who was not
competent and that the same suffers from the vice of non-
adherence to the rules/principles of nature justice is not tenable.
21. Resultantly, we are of the view that the High Court committed
no error whatsoever in rejecting the writ petition and writ appeal
preferred by the appellant, assailing the censure entry.
22. The appeal lacks merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs.
23. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
..……..………….………………….……….J.
(PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA)
……………………………………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
New Delhi;
September 27, 2024
13