# S.I. Sanjay Kumar v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 6 ILRA 5
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-05-09
- **Case number:** Special Appeal (D) No. 150 of 2022
- **Bench:** Rajesh Bindal, C.J. J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/s-i-sanjay-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48808
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Sri Ankit Gaur (State Law Officer)

A. Service Law - Under-performance -
Censure entry - The Uttar Pradesh Police
Officers
of
the
Subordinate
Ranks
(Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 -
Rule 4(1)(b)(iv), 14(2), 7 & 7(1).

Opportunity of hearing - No elaborate
procedure of holding an inquiry is required
in the case of a minor penalty, as is the
case when major penalty is imposed. In the
case of a minor penalty envisaged u/Rule
4(1)((b)(iv) of the Rules, all that is required is
that the Police Officer concerned is to be
informed in writing about the action proposed to
be taken and imputations of the act or omission,
on which the action is proposed, giving him
reasonable
opportunity
of
making
a
representation against the proposed action. This
is all that is required u/Rule 14(2) of the Rules,
in case where a minor penalty is imposed. (Para
11)

In present case, there was sufficient compliance
with the requirement of putting the appellant to
notice about the imputation that constituted the
omission on his part, against which he was
given an opportunity to furnish his explanation
that was placed before the Government and
duly considered by them before making the
order impugned. (Para 12)
B. Jurisdiction - The Uttar Pradesh Police
Officers
of
the
Subordinate
Ranks
(Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 -
Rule 7 - The Government has jurisdiction
under the Rules to punish a police officer
of the subordinate rank like the appellant
and no issue about the jurisdiction or lack
of authority can, therefore, be validly
raised. It is true that any punishment, including
minor penalties, can be imposed upon a police
officer by an officer not below the rank of
Deputy Inspector General of Police, but Rule 7
clothes the Government in the first place with
the power to punish a police officer of the
subordinate rank under the Rules. (Para 13, 14)

C. The correctness of the imputations
about acts of omissions that are the basis
of action against him are purely factual in
nature and cannot be gone into by this
Court
in
the
exercise
of
its
writ
jurisdiction u/Article 226 of the Constitution.
(Para 15)

Special appeal dismissed. (E-4)

Present special appeal assails judgment
and order dated 23.03.2022, passed by
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Manju Rani Chauhan,
J. in Writ-A No. 330 of 2022.

## Text

6 All. S.I. Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
5
(2022)06ILR A5
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, C.J.
THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Special Appeal (D) No. 150 of 2022

S.I. Sanjay Kumar ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Pankaj Kumar Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ankit Gaur (State Law Officer)

A. Service Law - Under-performance -
Censure entry - The Uttar Pradesh Police
Officers
of
the
Subordinate
Ranks
(Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 -
Rule 4(1)(b)(iv), 14(2), 7 & 7(1).

Opportunity of hearing - No elaborate
procedure of holding an inquiry is required
in the case of a minor penalty, as is the
case when major penalty is imposed. In the
case of a minor penalty envisaged u/Rule
4(1)((b)(iv) of the Rules, all that is required is
that the Police Officer concerned is to be
informed in writing about the action proposed to
be taken and imputations of the act or omission,
on which the action is proposed, giving him
reasonable
opportunity
of
making
a
representation against the proposed action. This
is all that is required u/Rule 14(2) of the Rules,
in case where a minor penalty is imposed. (Para
11)

In present case, there was sufficient compliance
with the requirement of putting the appellant to
notice about the imputation that constituted the
omission on his part, against which he was
given an opportunity to furnish his explanation
that was placed before the Government and
duly considered by them before making the
order impugned. (Para 12)
B. Jurisdiction - The Uttar Pradesh Police
Officers
of
the
Subordinate
Ranks
(Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 -
Rule 7 - The Government has jurisdiction
under the Rules to punish a police officer
of the subordinate rank like the appellant
and no issue about the jurisdiction or lack
of authority can, therefore, be validly
raised. It is true that any punishment, including
minor penalties, can be imposed upon a police
officer by an officer not below the rank of
Deputy Inspector General of Police, but Rule 7
clothes the Government in the first place with
the power to punish a police officer of the
subordinate rank under the Rules. (Para 13, 14)

C. The correctness of the imputations
about acts of omissions that are the basis
of action against him are purely factual in
nature and cannot be gone into by this
Court
in
the
exercise
of
its
writ
jurisdiction u/Article 226 of the Constitution.
(Para 15)

Special appeal dismissed. (E-4)

Present special appeal assails judgment
and order dated 23.03.2022, passed by
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Manju Rani Chauhan,
J. in Writ-A No. 330 of 2022.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Bindal, C.J.
& Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. This is an appeal by the petitioner
of Writ - A No.830 of 2022, impugning the
order of the learned Single Judge dated
23.03.2022, dismissing the writ petition.

2. The appellant is a Sub-Inspector of
Police, who was promoted from the ranks
in the year 2013. He is posted at Police
Station Hanumanganj, District Kushinagar.
Like other Sub-Inspectors, he was entrusted
with investigation of criminal cases,
numbering 30, until July, 2021. Out of
these
30,
the
appellant
completed
investigation into a total of 16, submitting a
report in Court. Apparently, the other cases
6 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
remained pending, where the investigation
was not concluded.

3. On the 9th September, 2021, the
Chief Minister issued directions to the
higher officials of the Police to review law
and order in different districts and find out
whether investigation in accordance with
law is being completed. The higher
officials examined records of different
police stations across the State. It is
asserted by the petitioner that in twelve
different districts, they found criminal
cases where the investigation has not been
completed and cases were pending with the
Police. The petitioner was posted, as
already
said,
at
Police
Station
Hanumanganj, District
Kushinagar
on
18.03.2021 and the scrutiny by the higher
officials found the ratio of completion of
investigations in the district to be poor. The
superior police officials directed the
district-level police officials to submit a
detailed report along with names of
Investigating Officers, who had not done
investigation and submitted a police report
before the Court concerned within time.
The higher officials also asked from each
of the twelve under-performing districts in
the matter of investigation, the names of
three
Sub-Inspectors/
Inspectors
(Investigating Officers), who had done the
minimum number of investigations. Their
names, rank and place of posting were all
required to be intimated to the Additional
Director General of Police (Crimes). In
fact, it was the Additional Director General
of Police aforesaid who furnished the
individual details of three Investigating
Officers
from
each
district
to
the
Government
vide
his
letter
dated
26.09.2021.

4. The appellant was identified in
District Kushinagar as one of the three
Investigating Officers, who had done the
minimum number of investigations and he
was reported to the Government. It appears
that for the aforesaid under-performance in
his investigative duties, he was given a
warning on 7th March, 2022 by the
Superintendent of Police of Kushinagar. On
the report submitted to the Government, the
order impugned dated 16th November,
2021 came to be passed, awarding the
appellant a censure entry. The appellant
challenged the order dated 16th July, 2021
passed by the State Government before this
Court by means of Writ - A No.830 of
2022. The aforesaid writ petition has been
dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide
order dated 23.03.2022.

5. Disillusioned, the appellant has
preferred this appeal.

6. We have heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar
Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant
and Mr. Ankit Gaur, learned State Law
Officer on behalf of the respondents.

7. It is submitted by the learned
Counsel for the appellant that the learned
Single Judge has failed to appreciate that
the order impugned has been passed
without
affording
the
appellant
any
opportunity of hearing. He submits that a
censure entry is after all one of the minor
penalties
contemplated
under
Rule
4(1)(b)(iv) of The Uttar Pradesh Police
Officers
of
the
Subordinate
Ranks
(Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for
short, 'the Rules'), which have adverse civil
consequences.
The
order,
therefore,
impugned before the learned Single Judge
could not have been made without
opportunity.

8. It is further submitted by the
learned Counsel for the appellant that the
6 All. S.I. Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
7
Government have no jurisdiction to pass
the impugned order, which vests in the
Deputy Inspector General of Police.

9. Learned Counsel for the State has
supported
the
impugned
order
and
submitted that it was passed after due
opportunity of hearing.

10. Upon considering the submissions
advanced by the learned Counsel for parties
and perusing the order impugned, besides
the material on record, we do not find any
merit in this appeal.

11. The submission of the learned
Counsel for the appellant that the order
impugned was passed without opportunity
is not borne out by the record. In fact, a
perusal of the order impugned shows that
after identifying the three Investigating
Officers in each of the twelve districts, who
had done the least number completed
investigations, their explanations were
sought through the Additional Director
General of Police (Crimes) and after
securing explanations from each of the
Investigating Officers concerned, these
were placed before the Government. The
learned Counsel for the appellant has not
been able to demonstrate from any material
that his explanation was not secured or
considered by the Government before the
impugned order was passed. In the case of
a minor penalty envisaged under Rule
4(1)((b)(iv) of the Rules, all that is required
is that the Police Officer concerned is to be
informed in writing about the action
proposed to be taken and imputations of the
act or omission, on which the action is
proposed,
giving
him
reasonable
opportunity of making a representation
against the proposed action. This is all that
is required under Rule 14(2) of the Rules,
in case where a minor penalty is imposed.
No elaborate procedure of holding an
inquiry is required in the case of a minor
penalty, as is the case when major penalty
is imposed.

12. To our mind, therefore, there was
sufficient compliance with the requirement
of putting the appellant to notice about the
imputation that constituted the omission on
his part, whereagainst he was given an
opportunity to furnish his explanation that
was placed before the Government and
duly considered by them before making the
order impugned.

13. So far as the question of
jurisdiction is concerned, it is true that any
punishment, including minor penalties, can
be imposed upon a police officer by an
officer not below the rank of Deputy
Inspector General of Police, but Rule 7 of
the Rules clothes the Government in the
first place with the power to punish a police
officer of the subordinate rank under the
Rules. In this connection, Rule 7(1) of the
Rules may be quoted with profit:

"7. Powers of punishment.-(1) The
Government or any officer of police
department not below the rank of the
Deputy Inspector General may award any
of the punishments mentioned in Rule 4 on
any Police Officer."

14. It is, therefore, evident that the
Government have jurisdiction under the
Rules to punish a police officer of the
subordinate rank like the appellant and no
issue about the jurisdiction or lack of
authority can, therefore, be validly raised.

15. The learned Counsel for the
appellant also endeavoured to dispute the
correctness of the imputations about acts of
omissions that are the basis of action
8 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
against him by reference to details of his
duty during the relevant period of time that
prevented
him
from
concluding
the
investigation. Those issues are purely
factual in nature and cannot be gone into by
this Court in the exercise of its writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution. Learned Counsel for the
appellant has not been able to point out any
procedural flaw or infirmity, vitiating the
impugned order or any illegality, that may
render it unsustainable.

16. In the circumstances, the
impugned order passed by the learned
Single Judge is unexceptionable.

17. The appeal fails and is dismissed.

18. There shall be no order as to
costs.
----------
(2022)06ILR A8
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ-A No. 3427 of 2022

Mohd. Adi Ahmad ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Mujib Ahmad Siddiqui

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Abhishek Srivastava

A. Service Law - Selection - Rule of
normalization - The High Courts cannot
over
step
its
jurisdiction
by
giving
directions which would amount to setting
aside the decision of the expert opinion of
testing agency. (Para 7)
The Master Answer Key which is published by
the testing agency or formulated by the testing
agency for the examination being conducted
and held by it, is prepared by team of subject
experts. Once the subject experts have
taken the view that a particular answer is
the correct answer to a question, there is
no mechanism itself for the Court to sit in
appeal over and above the opinion of the
subject expert. (Para 6)

B. Publication of revised answer key -
Clause 10 of Transparency Rule - As far as
the publication of revised answer key by
the testing agency is concerned, there is
no such rule. Clause 10 of Transparency Rule
of the advertisement clearly takes care of the
objections which are invited to the Master
Answer Key published by the testing agency and
then the disposal of objections by the testing
agency through its subject experts, which are
then considered to be final. (Para 5)

Petitioner has not questioned the advertisement
itself and after having submitted to the selection
process
and
appearing
in
the
written
examination conducted by the testing agency
and even having filed objections as per clause
10, he cannot be permitted to take the plea that
in spite of there being no such provision
contained u/Clause 10 of the advertisement, as
a rule of transparency, the testing agency ought
to have published the revised answer key. (Para
6)

C. The rule of normalization is adopted by
the testing agency to bring at par the
meritorious students who have gained
maximum marks in different set of papers
which have been formulated by the
testing agency to hold examination in
different shifts. (Para 11)

It is well within the domain of testing agency to
formulate rules and regulations for the purposes
of holding free and fair selection. It is not the
case of the petitioner that he was not aware of
any such terms and conditions under the
advertisement
regarding
modalities
to
be
adopted by the testing agency. It is after the
petitioner has found himself to have not
succeeded on merits that he has come to
challenge the rule of normalization. Therefore,