The appellant, a Sub-Inspector in Uttar Pradesh, challenged his censure for failing to dispose of investigations on time. The Supreme Court upheld the censure, ruling that the punishment was imposed in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. The court held that the relevant rules and principles of natural justice were followed.

1. Facts:

   • [Appellant’s Conduct and Impugned Order]:
     Appellant Sanjay Kumar, while posted as Sub-Inspector at PS Hanumanganj, District Khushinagar, was condemned for negligence and indifference in discharging duties (para 3-4). He was penalized with a censure as per an order dated 7th March 2022 (para 4).

   • [High Court Proceedings]:
     The appellant challenged the censure before the Allahabad High Court, but both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench dismissed his plea. He then approached the Supreme Court via special leave (para 5).

2. Appellant’s Arguments:

   • [Violation of Natural Justice]:
     The appellant argued that the censure was imposed without affording him an opportunity to show cause or make representations (para 6). He cited a violation of Rule 14(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (para 7).

3. State’s Arguments:

   • [Proper Process Followed]:
     The State contended that due process was followed, and the appellant was given an opportunity to explain his failure to complete investigations (para 9-10).

4. Analysis:

   • [Procedure under Rules, 1991]:
     Minor penalties such as censure must be imposed after giving a police officer written notice and the opportunity to make a representation (para 14-16). In this case, the appellant had been given notice and provided an explanation, but his explanation was deemed unsatisfactory (para 18).

   • [Competent Authority and Jurisdiction]:
     The Superintendent of Police had jurisdiction under Rule 7(2) of the Rules, 1991, to impose the penalty of censure on the appellant, and the process was in compliance with the rules (para 19-20).

5. Conclusion:

   • [Dismissal of Appeal]:
     The court found no violation of the principles of natural justice or the rules. The appeal was dismissed, and the censure upheld (para 21-22).

Ratio Decidendi:

The court held that the principles of natural justice were complied with, as the appellant was notified and given an opportunity to respond before the censure was imposed. The procedure for awarding minor penalties under Rule 14(2) and Rule 5(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991, was followed, and the Superintendent of Police had jurisdiction to impose the penalty.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991
  • Rule 4: Punishments (Minor and Major)
  • Rule 5: Procedure for awarding punishment
  • Rule 7: Powers of Punishment
  • Rule 14(2): Procedure for imposing minor penalties

Subjects:

• Censure
• Police Conduct
• Gross Negligence
• Natural Justice
• Minor Penalties
• Uttar Pradesh Police Rules