Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 38756 of 2002 Petitioner :- Ganeshi Lal Gautam Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ghanshyam Joshi,Rahul Saxena,Rajesh Kumar Gautam,Vijay Gautam Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashok Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
This petition is filed against the order dated 06.10.2000 annexure 6 to the writ petition, by which the Additional Superintendent of Police Shamli, Muzaffar Nagar has issued an order of minor punishment/censor against the petitioner.
By this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order dated 06.10.2000 and the order passed by the D.I.G. dated 26th February, 2002, by which the appellate authority has affirmed the order of Censor passed by the Additional Superintendent of Police.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has initially submitted that the Additional Superintendent of Police has no authority to pass the order of Censor.
Learned Standing Counsel has placed the provision of Rule 7 of U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (P&A) Rules, 1991. Learned Standing Counsel has placed Sub Rule (4) of Rule 7 of the aforesaid Rules of 1991.
The aforesaid Provision of Rule 7 Sub Rule (4) is quoted herein below:-
"(4) Subject to the provisions contained in these rules all Assistant Superintendents of Police and Deputy Superintendents of Police who have completed two years of service as Assistant Superintendents of Police and Deputy Superintendents of Police as the case may be, may exercise powers of Superintendent of Police except the powers to impose major punishments under rule-4."
In view of the above provision, learned counsel for the petitioner has therefore not disputed that the Additional Superintendent of Police has an authority under the law.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the instant case the power has not been delegated to the Additional Superintendent of Police by the competent authority, namely, D.I.G. Range.
Per contra learned Standing Counsel has submitted that this issue is raised for the first time by the counsel for the petitioner, as such there is neither any ground in the writ petition nor it was even pointed out before the revisional authority or before the Appellate Authority.
In view of the aforesaid, no interference is called for in writ jurisdiction by this Court.
Admittedly, an FIR is lodged on 16.04.2000 under Sections 147, 452, 506 and 307 of IPC and the petitioner, who was the investigating officer has submitted the charge-sheet on 26.05.2000 before the Circle Officer, who has forwarded the same on 02.06.2000. The Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken the cognizance on 23.06.2000 and the trial proceeds thereafter, however admittedly during the aforesaid period the accused was not arrested by the petitioner, who was supposed to arrest him and produce him before the Court below.
The departmental proceedings are being rightly carried out against the petitioner and that too after preliminary enquiry and report has been submitted by the enquiry officer.
The writ petition has no legs, therefore, is dismissed.
Order Date :- 23.8.2018 SK Srivastava