Supreme Court Upholds Punishment Of Censure On UP Police Sub-Inspector For Not Completing Investigations On Time

Recently, the Supreme Court upheld a penalty of censure imposed on a Sub-Inspector of Police in Uttar Pradesh for not performing his duties and not completing the assigned investigations within the specified time frame.

A show cause notice was served to the appellant who was posted as Sub-Inspector at Police Station Hanumanganj, District Khushinagar, Uttar Pradesh condemning the appellant for gross negligence, indifference, and selfishness while performing his duties. In reply to the show cause notice, the appellant explained 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.

However, after being unsatisfied with the appellant's explanation, he was handed down a penalty of censure vide letter issued by the Superintendent of Police.

The appellant contested the penalty of censure claiming that no opportunity of hearing was granted to him before handing down a penalty of censure before the High Court. 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, 1991. However, the writ petition stands dismissed by the Single Bench as well as the Division Bench of the High Court.

The appellant 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.

Following this, an appeal was preferred before the Supreme Court.

Affirming the decision of the High Court, the bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta observed that no error was committed by the SP while handing down a penalty of censure to the appellant.

The Court rejected the Appellant's argument that no opportunity was offered to him before handing down of penalty by the SP. It recorded that an order issued by the Additional DGP based on which SP decided to penalize the Appellant was based on an explanation offered by the Appellant.

“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 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 nonadherence to the rules/principles of nature justice is not tenable.”, the judgment authored by Justice Sandeep Mehta said.

Resultantly, the Appeal was dismissed and the impugned judgment was upheld.

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv. Mr. Syed Mehdi Imam, AOR Ms. Akriti Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Priyam Kaushik, Adv. Mr. R.S. Yadav, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Anuvrat Sharma, AOR Ms. Alka Sinha, Adv.

Case Title: SUB INSPECTOR SANJAY KUMAR VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS., C.A. No. 010894 / 2024

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 758

Click here to read/download the judgment