Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
(Dictated by Saurabh Lavania,J) 1- Heard Sri Ramesh Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manjheev Shukla learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
2- The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, for the following relief:-
"(I) Issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of Certiorari to quash the judgment and order dated 27.11.2018 passed by the State Public Service Tribunal in claim petition no.-474 of 2018, Amresh Chandra Versus State of U.P. and Others, Exparte minor punishment order No.-97/2017 dated 16.9.2017 (?kksj fuUnk) passed by the opposite party no.-4, Appellate order dated 25.1.2018 passed by the opposite party no.-3, contained as Annexure No.-1, 2 and 3 respectively to this writ petition."
3- Submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner before this Court is that enquiry report was not provided to the petitioner alongwith the show cause notice and due to unavoidable circumstances, he could not file the reply within stipulated time and in absence of reply the Punishing Authority passed a non speaking order dated 16.9.2017 and as such the same is not sustainable and the Tribunal while dismissing the claim petition has ignored this aspect of the case. The punishment imposed is not provided under the Rules and as such the punishment order is liable to be quashed.
4- On the other hand, submission of learned Counsel for the respondents/State is that the procedure prescribed for imposing minor punishment under the Rules has been followed and thereafter the order was passed. The petitioner took all the pleas before Appellate Authority, which could have been taken in reply to the show cause as the Appellate Authority by detailed and reasoned order rejected the Appeal. The Tribunal has also recorded the findings on the pleas of the petitioner and thereafter dismissed the claim petition. Thus, the writ petition has no force.
5- It transpires from the record that a show cause notice 25.5.2017 was served upon the petitioner under Rule 14 (2) of U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1991 (hereinafter referred as "Rules of 1991"). The allegations in show cause notice are to the effect that the petitioner in a very irresponsible and cursory manner conducted the enquiry/ investigation with regard to Criminal Case No.-470 of 2016 under Section 3/5/6 of Cow Slaughter Act and submitted final report. The notice also says that for the purposes of proper investigation the petitioner ought to have taken into account the registration number, Engine number and Chassis number of the vehicle (Santro Car) for identifying the owner of the vehicle and after collecting and considering the evidence, report should have been prepared and filed. The time for reply was provided in the notice, specifically mentioning therein that in absence of reply it would be deemed that the charge has been admitted and an ex-parte order would be passed. It is evident from the notice that copy of preliminary enquiry report was provided to the petitioner and the Appellate Authority/opposite party no.-4 has passed a speaking and reasoned order dated 25.1.2018. It appears from the memo of appeal and the order that all the pleas which would have been taken in the reply to the show cause notice, were taken by the petitioner and appellate authority considered all the pleas and passed the order dated 25.1.2018. The relevant portion of the show cause notice is quoted below:-
^^dkj.k crkvks uksfVl m0fu0 uk0iq0 Jh vejs'k pUnz] }kjk Fkkuk/;{k fuxksgh] 'kkgtgkWiqjA o"kZ 2016 esa tc vki Fkkuk fuxksgh tuin 'kkgtgkWiqj esas fu;qDr Fks rks Fkkuk fuxksgh ij iathd`r eq0v0la0 [email protected] /kkjk [email protected]@8 xkSo/k vf/k0 dh foospuk fnukad 03-07-16 dks vki }kjk xzg.k dh x;h rFkk fnukad 24-12-16 dks foospuk vfUre fjiksVZ ds ek/;e ls lekIr dh x;hA izdj.k es lSUVªks dkj Hkh cjken dh x;h Fkh foospd gksus ds ukrs vkidk nkf;Ro Fkk fd vki xgurk ls foospuk dj cjken dkj ds jftLVªs'ku] batu ,oa psfll uEcjksa ds v/kkj ij okgu Lokeh dk irk Kkr dj lk{; ladyu dj xq.k&nks"k ds vk/kkj ij foospuk dk fof/kd dk fuLrkj.k djrs] ijUrq vki }kjk ,slk ugha fd;k x;k vkSj ljljs rkSj ij foospukRed dk;Zokgh djrs gq;s vfUre fjiksVZ izsf"kr dj nh x;hA vkidk ;g d`R; foospukRed dk;Z ds izfr ?kksj ykijokgh] mnklhurk ,oa f'kfFkyrk dk ifjpk;d gS] ftldh ?kksj fuUnk dh tkrh gSA vr% vki dkj.k crkvks uksfVl dh izkfIr ds 15 fnol ds vUnj viuk fyf[kr Li"Vhdj.k izLrqr djas fd D;ksa u vkids mDr d`R; ds fy, nks"kh ik;s tkus ij m0iz0 v/khuLFk Js.kh ds iqfyl vf/kdkfj;ksa dh n.M ,oa vihy fu;ekoyh 1991 ds fu;e 14¼2½ ds izkfo/kkuksas ds vUrxZr fuEufyf[kr ifjfuUnk izfof"V vkidh pfj= iaftdk esa vafdr dj nh tk;sA vkidks ;g Hkh Li"V fd;k tkrk gS fd ;fn vkidk Li"Vhdj.k mDr fu/kkZfjr vof/k esa izkIr gks tkrk gS rks ml ij lgkuqHkwfriwoZd fopkj fd;k tk;sxk] vU;Fkk Li"Vhdj.k izkIr u gksus dh n'kk esa ;g ekudj fd vkidks vius cpko esa dqN ugha dguk gS] vkSj yxk;s x;s vkjksi vkidks Lohdkj gSA rn~uqlkj vxzsrj dk;Zokgh djrs gq, ,di{kh; vkns'k ikfjr dj fn;s tk;saxsA mDr fu/kkZfjr le;kof/k esas gh vkidks dk;kZy; fnol esa i=koyh ds voyksdu fd;s tkus dh vuqefr iznku dh tkrh gSA izkjfEHkd tkWp dh Nk;k izfr layXu gSA ^^ o"kZ 2016 esa tc ;g Fkkuk fuxksgh tuin 'kkgtgkWiqj esa fu;qDr Fks rks Fkkuk fuxksgh ij iathd`r eq0v0la0 [email protected] /kkjk [email protected]@8 xkSo/k vf/k0 dh foospuk fnukad 03-07-16 dks buds }kjk xzg.k dh x;h rFkk fnukad 24-12-16 dks foospuk vfUre fjiksVZ ds ek/;e ls lekIr dh x;hA izdj.k esa lSUVªks dkj Hkh cjken dh x;h Fkh foospd gksus ds ukrs budk nkf;Ro Fkk fd ;g xgurk ls foospuk dj cjken dkj ds jftLVªs'ku] batu ,oa psfll uEcjksa ds vk/kkj ij okgu Lokeh dk irk Kkr dj lk{; ladyu dj xq.k&nks"k ds vk/kkj ij foospuk dk fof/kd dk fuLrkj.k djrs] ijUrq buds }kjk ,Slk ugh fd;k x;k vksj ljljs rkSj ij foospukRed dk;Zokgh djrs gq, vfUre fjiksVZ izsf"kr dj nh x;hA budk ;g d`R; foospukRed dk;Z ds izfr ?kksj ykijokgh] mnklhurk ,oa f'kfFkyrk dk ifjpk;d gS] ftldh ?kksj fuUnk dh tkrh gSA^^ 6- From perusal of the records, pleading and annexures, it is apparent that the petitioner neither moved any application for extension of time for submitting the reply nor he has submitted the reply. Non submission of reply by petitioner within the stipulated time was considered as admission of charge by the petitioner and accordingly the Punishing Authority/ opposite party no.-4 passed the order of minor punishment dated 16.9.2017. Thereafter the petitioner preferred the appeal and the said appeal was also rejected by the appellate authority/ opposite party No.-3 on 25.01.2018 by passing reasoned and speaking order. It appears from the memo of appeal and the order passed thereon that the opposite party no.3, while passing the order dated 25.1.2018 considered all the pleas taken by the petitioner. The orders dated 16.9.2017 and 25.1.2018, were challenged before the Tribunal on the main grounds to the effect that order dated 16.9.2017 is a non speaking order, copy of the enquiry report was not provided to the petitioner as well as proper opportunity was not provided to the petitioner and the punishment awarded (?kksj fuUnk) is a punishment, which is not provided under the Rules of 1991. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition vide order dated 27.11.2008.
7- We have considered the documents on record and the submissions made by Counsel for the respective parties. The charge/issue under show cause notice is related with investigation carried out by the petitioner (a Police Officer) with respect of criminal case.
8- The charge, as appears from the show cause notice is that petitioner in a very irresponsible and cursory manner as well as negligently conducted the investigation.
The purpose of the investigation is to explore in detail the allegations, to examine the evidence in depth including recording of statements of concerned to the incident and considering the case properly and thereafter determine the issue involved in the case and to unearth the truth and to identify the culprit and commission of crime, if any. It is the duty of the Investigating Officer to carry out the investigation by using full skill and covering all the aspects of the case, as aforesaid, and thereafter in report shall state in detail the procedure adopted in investigation, describe how and from where information relevant to the investigation was obtained, state the findings, and explain the basis for the findings.
9- The charge in show cause notice specifically states that the investigation has not been done properly. The show cause notice was not replied and in appeal against order of punishment dated 16.9.2017. However in the appeal the petitioner has specifically said that investigation on the basis of Engine Number and Chassis Number of car (Santro Car) was not required, despite the fact that car involved in offence, which shows the negligence and carelessness on the part of the petitioner.
10- It is evident that in appeal the petitioner took all the pleas, which could have been taken in reply and the show cause notice, and Appellate Authority dealt with all the pleas i.e. plea pertaining to not considering the Engine Number and Chassis Number of the Santro Car during investigation, plea related with non submission of reply and ex-prte order as well as plea that the investigation was carried out as per direction of the Higher Authorities and rejected the appeal on 25.1.2018. While rejecting the appeal, the Appellate Authority held that in not considering the Engine Number and Chassis Number of the Santro Car during investigation and in not submitting the reply the petitioner was negligent and the Appellate Authority also held that the allegation of the petitioner that the investigation was carried out as per direction of superiors is incorrect as the Superior pointed out the negligence of petitioner in conducting the investigation.
11- The appellate order is well reasoned and has been passed after considering all the aspects/pleas of the petitioner.
12- The Tribunal also recorded the findings of fact on the issue involved.
13- On the issue of providing the enquiry report and opportunity of hearing the Tribunal after perusing the show cause notice dated 25.5.2017 held that prior to passing order of punishment the show cause notice dated 25.5.2017 was served and proper opportunity was provided. The fact finding Tribunal specifically held that petitioner was negligent in carrying out the investigation and the petitioner failed in proving the otherwise by placing facts and documents.
14- In regard to punishment (?kksj fuUnk) given the Tribunal held the word "?kksj" before "fuUnk" has been put just to sensitise/emphasis the "fuUnk" (censure) and it can not be said that punishment provided is alien of rules.
15- The present writ petition is against the order of Tribunal dated 27.11.2018 passed in claim petition filed by the petitioner wherein the order of punishment dated 16.9.2017 and appellate order dated 25.1.2018 were challenged and the findings have been categorically recorded on the issue raised by the petitioner as such the scope under Article 226 of Constitution of India is very limited.
16- The Writ Court does not sit in appeal and exercises only supervisory jurisdiction and while exercising the same, Writ Court is not supposed to enter into the findings of fact. The Writ Court is supposed to consider the decision making process and not the decision unless the same is erroneous and perverse on facts and evidences.
17- In the instant case, it is evident from the record that the findings have been given against the petitioner in preparing the report as Investigating Officer and the same are to the effect that the petitioner was irresponsible and negligent and in cursory manner prepared the report.
18- In the light of aforesaid and considering the duty of Police Officer as Investigating Officer, who was required to carry out the investigation, diligently and intelligently, as pointed out hereinabove, as well as the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of Constitution of India, we are of the view that in the instant case the petitioner failed to perform his duties as an Investigating Officer and he failed to prove his innocence and as such no interference is required under Article 226 of Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly dismissed.
19- No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 22.1.2019 Jyoti/-