Supreme Court Allows Appeal of Sub-Inspector in Censure Penalty Case for Violation of Natural Justice. Censure Entry Set Aside as Imposed Without Show Cause Notice as Required Under Rule 14(2) of Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991.

In Favour of Accused
  • 561
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Sub Inspector Sanjay Kumar, while posted at Police Station Hanumanganj, District Khushinagar, Uttar Pradesh, was subjected to a penalty of censure vide office order dated 16th November, 2021 issued by the Additional Chief Secretary, Home (Police), and a consequent censure entry was directed to be recorded in his service book via letter dated 7th March, 2022 by the Superintendent of Police. The penalty was imposed on the ground that the appellant did not show expected interest in disposal of investigations, which was termed as gross negligence, indifference and selfishness. The appellant challenged these orders before the Allahabad High Court by way of a writ petition, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. An intra-court appeal was also dismissed by the Division Bench. Hence, the appellant approached the Supreme Court by special leave. The core legal issue was whether the imposition of censure without issuing a show cause notice violated the principles of natural justice and the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. The appellant argued that no opportunity to show cause was afforded before imposing the penalty, and the High Court dismissed the writ petition without requiring the State to file a reply, leaving the appellant's assertions uncontroverted. The State contended that a notice was issued by the Circle Officer and the appellant's reply was considered unsatisfactory. The Supreme Court examined Rule 5 read with Rule 14(2) of the Rules, 1991, which mandates that before imposing a minor penalty like censure, the police officer must be informed in writing of the action proposed and the imputations, and given a reasonable opportunity to make a representation. The Court found that the notice by the Circle Officer was not a statutory show cause notice under Rule 14(2) and that the impugned orders were passed without following the prescribed procedure. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned orders, and directed that the censure entry be expunged from the appellant's service record.

Headnote

A) Service Law - Censure - Minor Penalty - Rule 14(2) of Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 - Principles of Natural Justice - The appellant, a Sub-Inspector, was imposed a penalty of censure without being issued a show cause notice or given an opportunity to make a representation against the proposed action. The court held that the procedure under Rule 14(2) mandates that a police officer must be informed in writing of the action proposed and the imputations, and given a reasonable opportunity to make a representation. The failure to do so vitiates the penalty. (Paras 14-16)

B) Service Law - Censure - Adverse Entry - Rule 5 read with Rule 14(2) of Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 - The impugned order dated 16th November, 2021 and the consequent communication dated 7th March, 2022 directing censure entry were set aside as they were passed without following the mandatory procedure. The court observed that the respondents' contention that a notice was given by the Circle Officer was not a substitute for the statutory notice required under Rule 14(2). (Paras 15-16)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

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 Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order dated 16th November, 2021 and the consequent communication dated 7th March, 2022, and directed that the censure entry be expunged from the appellant's service record.

Law Points

  • Principles of natural justice
  • Show cause notice
  • Censure
  • Minor penalty
  • Rule 14(2) of Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules
  • 1991
  • Opportunity of hearing
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2024 LawText (SC) (9) 273

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 12891 of 2022

2024-10-16

Mehta, J.

2024 INSC 745

Sub Inspector Sanjay Kumar

State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil appeal against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the appellant's challenge to a penalty of censure imposed by the State Government.

Remedy Sought

The appellant sought quashing of the office order dated 16th November, 2021 and the consequent communication dated 7th March, 2022 directing censure entry in his service book.

Filing Reason

The appellant was imposed a penalty of censure without being afforded an opportunity to show cause, in violation of the principles of natural justice and the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991.

Previous Decisions

The writ petition (Writ-A No. 830 of 2022) was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court on 23rd March, 2022. The intra-court appeal (Special Appeal (Defective) No. 150 of 2022) was dismissed by the Division Bench on 9th May, 2022.

Issues

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? Whether the said action is dehors the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant: No opportunity to show cause was afforded before imposing the penalty of censure; the impugned order is in clear breach of Rule 5 read with Rule 14(2) of the Rules, 1991 and principles of natural justice; the High Court dismissed the writ petition without requiring the State to file a reply, leaving the appellant's assertions uncontroverted. Respondent: The Chief Minister's review meeting led to identification of erring officers; a notice was issued by the Circle Officer to the appellant and his reply was considered unsatisfactory; the impugned order was passed after due process.

Ratio Decidendi

The imposition of a minor penalty of censure under Rule 4(1)(b)(iv) of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 requires compliance with Rule 14(2), which mandates that the police officer be informed in writing of the action proposed and the imputations, and be given a reasonable opportunity to make a representation. Failure to issue a show cause notice as per the statutory rule vitiates the penalty, as it violates the principles of natural justice.

Judgment Excerpts

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. Rule 14(2) ... 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.

Procedural History

The appellant, a Sub-Inspector, was condemned for gross negligence vide office order dated 16th November, 2021 by the Additional Chief Secretary, Home (Police). Consequently, a censure entry was directed via letter dated 7th March, 2022 by the Superintendent of Police. The appellant filed Writ-A No. 830 of 2022 before the Allahabad High Court, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 23rd March, 2022. He then filed Special Appeal (Defective) No. 150 of 2022, which was dismissed by the Division Bench on 9th May, 2022. The appellant thereafter filed SLP(Civil) No. 12891 of 2022 before the Supreme Court, which was converted into the present civil appeal.

Acts & Sections

  • Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991: Rule 4, Rule 5, Rule 7, Rule 14
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal by Hindu Temple in Suit for Possession of Salt Pan Lands; Upholds Permanent Lease in Favor of Government Under Regulation 1 of 1805. Fixed Annual Compensation of 1848 Pagodas and Possession Since 1806 Held to Evidence P...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Assessee in Income Tax Act, 1922 Deduction Case. Payment Made Due to Statutory Default in Deducting Tax at Source from Foreign Collaborator's Fees Not Deductible as Business Expenditure or Bad Debt Under Sections 10(2)(xi) and...