Manjive Shukla, J
1. Heard Sri Vikram Bahadur Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Dileep Kumar Kesarwani, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents.
2. Petitioner through this writ petition has challenged the order dated 19.10.2022 passed by the learned U.P. State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow in Claim Petition No.907 of 2022 and the order dated 14.7.2023 passed in Review Petition No.104 of 2022. Petitioner through this writ petition has also challenged the punishment order dated 6.1.2021 (wrongly transcribed as 6.1.2020), appellate order dated 13.12.2021 and revisional order dated 12.7.2022.
3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the Superintendent of Police, Mainpuri issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 21.11.2020 whereby petitioner was required to submit his reply within 15 days in respect of charge against him that in the year 2019 while he was posted as Station House Officer at Police Station Bichhwan, on 05/06.07.2019 in the night one Mr. Raju along with his wife was passing through Bichhwan
Road on motorbike, unknown miscreants stopped the motorbike and showing the weapon took away his wife and raped her but when Sri Raju informed to Police Station Bichhwan on UP-112, petitioner and few other police personnel misbehaved with him and did not extend him any help thereafter, Mr. Raju reported the aforesaid incident in Police Station Kurawali and there the case was registered as Case Crime No.257 of 2019 under Section 364/376D/392 IPC. The conduct of the petitioner tarnished the image of disciplined police force and reflects the negligence and indiscipline therefore, petitioner through show cause notice was required to submit reply, as to why censure entry may not be given to him. Prior to issuance of show cause notice dated 21.11.2020, preliminary inquiry was also conducted in the matter in which petitioner was prima facie found guilty of the aforesaid charge. Petitioner along with show cause notice dated 21.11.2020 was also served a copy of the preliminary inquiry report. Petitioner submitted his reply to the aforesaid show cause notice on 29.11.2020.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Mainpuri considered the reply submitted by the petitioner and thereafter passed the punishment order on 6.1.2021 (wrongly transcribed as 6.1.2020) whereby minor penalty of censure has been inflicted upon the petitioner. Petitioner filed appeal under Rule 20 of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1991') and the said appeal was rejected by the Inspector General of Police, Agra Zone, Agra vide order dated 18.12.2021. Thereafter, petitioner filed a revision under Rule 23 of the Rules of 1991 which too was rejected by the Additional Director General of Police, Agra Zone, Agra vide order dated 12.7.2022.
5. Petitioner challenged the punishment order dated 6.1.2021 (wrongly transcribed as 6.1.2020), appellate order dated 18.12.2021 and revisional order dated 12.7.2022 by filing Claim Petition No.907 of 2022 before the learned U.P. State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow wherein petitioner took ground that the Disciplinary Authority before passing the punishment order dated 6.1.2021 (wrongly transcribed as 6.1.2020) did not hold any inquiry and further his reply against the show cause notice has not been considered in the punishment order. The State respondents filed their written statement in the claim petition. The learned Tribunal after hearing the matter passed order on 19.10.2022 whereby claim petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. Petitioner preferred a Review Petition No.104 of 2022 for review of order dated 19.10.2022 but the said review petition has also been rejected vide order dated 14.7.2023.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the Disciplinary Authority i.e. Superintendent of Police, Mainpuri prior to passing of punishment order dated 6.1.2021 did not conduct any inquiry and further he also did not consider the reply submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice therefore, the punishment order cannot sustain in the eyes of law. It has further been submitted that the learned Tribunal also did not consider that the Disciplinary Authority has passed the punishment order without considering reply of the petitioner submitted against the show cause notice and straightaway has dismissed the claim petition vide order dated 19.10.2022 as such, the order passed by the learned Tribunal cannot sustain in the eyes of law.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the learned Tribunal while passing order dated 14.7.2023 did not consider that petitioner has not committed any misconduct and further punishment order dated 6.1.2021 has been passed without even following the procedure laid down in the Rules of 1991 for imposing punishment against the police officers. It has further been argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that even review petition filed by the petitioner for review of order dated 19.10.2022 has been rejected by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 14.7.2023 without considering the grounds taken in the review petition.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has thus concluded his arguments and has submitted that writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed by this court and orders impugned in this writ petition are liable to be quashed.
9. Per contra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents has vehemently argued that the procedure for imposing minor penalty against a police officer is provided under Rule 14(2) of the Rules of 1991 wherein it is provided that minor punishment can be imposed by issuing a show cause notice to the police officer and after considering his reply submitted against the show cause notice. It has further been argued that a preliminary inquiry was conducted against the petitioner in which prima facie it was found that he is guilty of misconduct and thereafter a show cause notice was issued to him whereby he was required to submit his reply against the charge levelled. Petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice and thereafter the Disciplinary Authority has considered each and every point of the reply submitted by the petitioner and ultimately has passed order on 6.1.2021 whereby minor punishment of censure has been imposed against the petitioner.
10. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents has also argued that the charge levelled against the petitioner on its face stands proved as petitioner being Station House Officer, in spite of being informed, did not extend any help to a rape victim and her husband and further he misbehaved with the husband of rape victim. The husband of rape victim has also lodged an FIR as Case Crime No.260 of 2019 under Sections 307, 323, 504 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act at P.S. Kurawali, Mainpuri in which police after investigation has submitted charge sheet before the competent court of law against the petitioner and few other police personnel.
11. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents has thus concluded his arguments and has submitted that writ petition filed by the petitioner is absolutely misconceived and is liable to be dismissed by this court.
12. We have considered the rival arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and we find that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority on 21.11.2020 wherein charge was levelled against the petitioner that while he was posted as Station House Officer at Police Station Bichhwan, in the night
of 05/06.07.2019 one Mr. Raju along with his wife was passing through Bichhwan Road on motorbike, certain unknown miscreants stopped them by showing weapon and took his wife and raped her and further when Mr. Raju informed the Police Station Bichhwan on UP-112, then petitioner and other police personnel reached on the spot and misbehaved with Mr. Raju. Later on, Mr. Raju lodged two separate First Information Reports in Police Station Kurawali, one as Case Crime No.257 of 2019 under Section 364/376D/392 IPC and another as Case Crime No.260 of 2019 under Sections 307, 323, 504 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act in respect of conduct of the petitioner and other police officers. Prior to issuance of show cause notice, a preliminary inquiry was also conducted against the petitioner in which prima facie his misconduct was found proved and petitioner along with show cause notice dated 21.11.2020 was also served with copy of the preliminary inquiry report. Petitioner submitted reply to the show cause notice on 29.11.2020.
13. This court finds that the Disciplinary Authority after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner has passed order dated 6.1.2021 (wrongly transcribed as 6.1.2020) whereby minor punishment of 'censure' has been imposed against the petitioner. Petitioner filed appeal against the punishment order dated 6.1.2021 which has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 13.12.2021 and thereafter revision filed by the petitioner has also been rejected by the revisional authority vide order dated 12.7.2022.
14. The matters of discipline and appeal of the police officers of the subordinate rank of the U.P. Police are governed by the Rules of 1991. Rule 14(2) of the Rules of 1991 deals with the procedure to be followed for imposing minor punishment provided under Rule 4 (1) (b). For ready reference, Rule 14(2) of the Rules of 1991 is extracted as under:-
"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 if 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.”
15. This court finds that for imposing minor punishment against a police officer of the subordinate rank under Rule 14(2) of the Rules of 1991, the Disciplinary Authority is required to issue a show cause notice and thereafter, to consider reply submitted by the police officer while passing the order for minor punishment. In the present case, in respect of a serious charge against the petitioner, preliminary inquiry was conducted in which prima facie charge levelled against the petitioner was found proved, thereafter the Disciplinary Authority issued a show cause notice on 21.11.2020 to which petitioner submitted his reply on 29.11.2020 and the Disciplinary Authority has considered the reply submitted by the petitioner in detail and has passed order dated 6.1.2021 (wrongly transcribed as 6.1.2020) whereby minor punishment of censure has been imposed against the petitioner.
16. Learned Tribunal has considered the matter in detail and has recorded a finding that the charge levelled against the petitioner is a serious misconduct and as per procedure laid down in Rule 14(2) of the Rules of 1991 the Disciplinary Authority issued a show cause notice to the petitioner and after considering his reply, has passed the punishment order dated 6.1.2021 and therefore, no interference is required in the matter and accordingly, dismissed the claim petition vide order dated 19.10.2022. Learned Tribunal has also rejected the review petition No. 104 of 2022 filed by the petitioner on the ground that there is no error apparent on the face of the order dated 19.10.2022 passed by the Tribunal in Claim Petition No.907 of 2022.
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. Dalbir Singh, (2021) 11 SCC 321 has held that power of judicial review by a court in service matters is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eyes of the Court. It has further been held that judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of a manner in which decision is made and the Court has to examine as to whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice have been complied with. The relevant paragraph of judgment rendered in the case of Dalbir Singh (supra) is extracted as under:-
"22. In another Judgment reported as B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, it was held that the power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. The Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. The Court is to examine as to whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. This Court held as under:-
"12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case.
13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has coextensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary inquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before Court//Tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel, this Court held at p-728 that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued.”
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and Others Vs. Ajay Kumar Srivastava, (2021) 2 SCC 612 has held that power of judicial review of the constitutional courts is the evaluation of the decision making process and not the merits of the decision and further the scope of judicial review cannot be extended to the examination of the correctness or reasonableness of a decision of an authority. The relevant paragraph of judgment rendered in the case of Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) (supra) is extracted as under:-
"24. It is thus settled that the power of judicial review, of the constitutional courts, is an evaluation of the decision making process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion. The Court/Tribunal may interfere in the proceedings held against the delinquent if it is, in any manner, inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority if based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached or where the conclusions upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued. To sum up, the scope of judicial review cannot be extended to the examination of correctness or reasonableness of a decision of authority as a matter of fact.”
19. By now it is well settled proposition of law through catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in the matters of punishment imposed against a government servant under Discipline and Appeal Rules, the Tribunal and this Court can only see the correctness of the decision making process and in the present case, it is apparent from the face of record that while imposing minor punishment against the petitioner, procedure prescribed under Rule 14(2) of the Rules of 1991 has been followed and there is no infirmity in the decision making process.
20. In view of the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the orders impugned in this writ petition.
21. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
