Hon'ble Virendra Kumar-II,J.
Heard Sri Ramesh Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.
The instant writ petition arises out of the judgment and order dated dated 09.03.2017 passed by the Uttar Pradesh Public Services Tribunal (in short referred to as "the Tribunal") in Claim Petition No.1662 of 2016 (Masood Asghar Vs. State of U.P. and others), whereby the claim petition of the petitioner has been dismissed by the Tribunal affirming the order of punishment dated 20.08.2015 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Barabanki and the appellate order dated 18.01.2016 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Faizabad Range, Faizabad.
Submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a Head Constable in Civil Police (Promotional Pay Scale),who was subjected to departmental proceeding under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Police Officers (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1991 (in short "1991 Rules"). In the preliminary inquiry, the petitioner was allegedly found guilty for not not showing respect to public representative i.e.Mr. Rakesh Pratap Singh (MLA) and having spoke to media persons.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that on the report of preliminary inquiry dated 05.06.2014 submitted by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Amethi, a charge-sheet dated 01.10.2014 was served upon the petitioner requiring him to submit his reply. Vide letter dated 10.10.2014, the petitioner had requested for providing copies of preliminary inquiry report and the complaint but the same were not provided and in absence of such documents, the petitioner submitted his reply on 31.10.2014 denying the allegations levelled again him.
It has also been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, final inquiry was initiated against the petitioner and after concluding the final inquiry, the Additional Superintendent of Police (North), Barabanki vide inquiry report dated 08.07.2015 recommended for punishment of withholding one increment for a period of one year, which is against the law laid down by this Court in the case of Ram Pal Singh Versus Director of Agriculture, U.P. and others; 2012 (30) LCD 843 in which the learned Single Judge relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of State of Uttaranchal and others Versus Kharak Singh; (2008) 8 SCC 236, has held that in regard to question whether an inquiry officer can indicate the proposed punishment in his report, this Court, in a series of decisions has pointed out that it is for the punishing/ disciplinary authority to impose appropriate punishment and inquiry officer has no role in awarding punishment. It is well settled law that it is for the punishing authority to propose punishment and not for the inquiring authority.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has again submitted that on the basis of the aforesaid illegal inquiry report dated 08.07.2015, the Superintendent of Police, Barabanki issued a show cause notice dated 24.07.2015 to the petitioner requiring him to submit explanation. The petitioner had submitted his reply on 12.08.2015 denying the allegations levelled against him but without considering his reply, the Superintendent of Police, Barabanki has passed an order of punishment dated 20.08.2015 withholding one increment for a period of one year. Being aggrieved by the order dated 20.08.2015, the petitioner moved an appeal but the same has also been dismissed vide order dated 18.01.2016 by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Faizabad Range, Faizabad without considering the grounds taken by the petitioner.
It has further been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in respect of the same incident, the Superintendent of Police, Amethi passed minor punishment vide order dated 02.09.2014 imposing censure entry against the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has again contended that the departmental proceeding was initiated under the provisions of Rule 14(1) of the 1991 Rules and the Inquiry Officer has recommended the punishment, therefore, the order of punishment based on the said inquiry report is vitiated in law.This aspect of the matter was not considered by the appellate authority as also by the Tribunal and as such both are not legally sustainable.
During the course of argument, learned Counsel for the petitioner has stated that the Tribunal has erred in not following its own earlier decision rendered in identical matter of Dharmendra Pratap Singh versus State of U.P. and others decided on 8.12.2015 wherein the Tribunal has placed reliance on a verdict given by the High Court on 23.4.2014 in the matter of Yash Pal Singh versus State of U.P. and others [Writ A No. 23402 of 2014].
A Division Bench of this Court at Allahabad in Yash Pal Singh's case supra has treated the recommendation of the Inquiry Officer, on the point of punishment, as an irregularity and has relegated the matter to the disciplinary authority to reconsider the award of punishment, applying his own mind to the facts of the case. The aforesaid facts are not disputed by the Standing Counsel.
We are further of the view that in terms of Appendix-1 to the Rules, 1991 the Inquiry Officer cannot and should not refer to the prosed punishment in the inquiry report itself, and he may at the most submit his recommendation on a separate paper to the disciplinary authority.
Consistency in approach and Uniformity in the exercise of judicial discretion respecting similar causes is the essence of judicial discipline. Surprisingly, in the instant case, before the Tribunal the earlier view expressed in similar matter by the Tribunal and this Court was brought to the notice of the Tribunal but in the impugned judgment this aspect of the matter has not been dealt in any manner, which shows non-application of mind by the Tribunal.
For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 9.3.2017 passed by the Tribunal is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted to the disciplinary authority to reconsider the matter and then pass a fresh order without being influenced by any recommendation made by the Inquiry Officer in its report. This exercise shall be completed by the disciplinary authority expeditiously.
Order Date:
March 28, 2018 MH/-