Court No. - 58
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 28992 of 2012 Petitioner :- Shiv Narayan Tiwari Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pardeep Mishra,Adarsh Singh,Indra Raj Singh,R M Saggi,S.K. Pandey,Subhash Chandra Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 28987 of 2012 Petitioner :- Om Prakash Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pardeep Mishra,S.K. Pandey,Subash Chandra Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 36547 of 2012 Petitioner :- Musafir Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- S.K. Pandey,Pradeep Mishra,Subhash Chandra Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
This petition is directed against the order dated 8th August, 2011 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Sonbhadra awarding censure entry to the petitioner as well as the orders affirming it in appeal and revision.
The order records that the petitioner while was working at Police Station Obra was found involved in illegal extraction of money from persons who were transporting minor minerals in the area concerned. A preliminary inquiry was instituted in which facts were ascertained. Finding that petitioner's implication was substantiated and a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and after considering his reply the order impugned has been passed.
The only ground pressed on behalf of the petitioner to challenge the order impugned is that the inquiry was not conducted in accordance with law, inasmuch as the statement of witnesses were not recorded in presence of the petitioner.
Admittedly, services of petitioner are governed by the U.P. Police Ministerial Service Rules, 1991. The punishment imposed upon the petitioner is classified as minor penalty. The procedure contemplated before imposing punishment of minor penalty has been followed inasmuch as a show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner and his reply has been taken note of. Compliance of Rule 14 (2) of the Rules, 1991 is substantiated on record.
The respondents were not required to conduct detailed departmental inquiry for the purposes of imposing minor punishment. No regular departmental proceedings were otherwise initiated against the petitioner. The inquiry conducted by the respondents was in the nature of preliminary inquiry and the same cannot be construed as a regular departmental inquiry. The purpose of conducting preliminary inquiry is to ascertain basic facts and the proceedings in that regard would not get vitiated only because statements have not been recorded in presence of the employee concerned. No other illegality or perversity is shown in the order itself.
In view of the above the writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.11.2018 Nadeem Ahmad