Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents.
Petitioner is a constable. He was served with a show cause notice dated 08.06.2010 proposing to impose a minor penalty of censure entry to be recorded in his service-book for alleged charge of having committed indiscipline by refusing to take charge of arms and ammunition and the Government property in defiance of the direction issued by the Incharge Police Station. The petitioner submitted his reply. The Superintendent of Police, Hamirpur after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner did not find it sufficient and accordingly confirmed the proposed minor punishment of censure entry. Appeal and revision filed by the petitioner was also dismissed.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order has been passed without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner and the entire proceedings are in volation of principles of natural justice, in as much as at no point of time, he was allowed to cross-examine the witness nor was allowed any opportunity to produce witness in his support.
I have considered the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
The disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner are governed by U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short Rules, 1991). Rule 4 (1) (a) prescribes the major penalties and Section 4 (1) (b) prescribes minor penalty. Fine not exceeding one month's pay falls under the category of minor penalty. Rule 5 of Rules, 1991 prescribes that the cases, in which minor punishments are to be awarded, shall be dealt with in accordance with the procedure prescribed in sub-rule (2) of Rule 14. Rule 14 (2) reads 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."
In the case in hand, a show cause notice as required by Rule 14 (2) was served upon the petitioner and the impugned order of punishment has been passed after taking into account the reply submitted by him.
Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any procedural irregularity in conducting the proceeding which may vitiate the same. The procedure for imposing minor penalty is entirely different that the one prescribed for major penalty. The procedure for awarding minor penalty does not provide for any detail departmental enquiry in which witnesses are to be produced or cross-examined.
The impugned order of punishment has been passed after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice, which was not found to be sufficient. It is not the case that the reply of the petitioner was not taken into consideration while passing the impugned order. In so far as the subjective satisfaction is concerned, the authority while passing the order, has considered the reply and after recording his satisfaction, has passed the order.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out either any procedural irregularity in the proceedings or any illegality in the impugned orders which may require any interference by this Court.
The writ petition, accordingly, fails and stands dismissed in limine.
Order Date :- 14.9.2012 Dcs