HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 9629 of 2025 Court No. - 8 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging a show cause notice dated 21.4.2025 proposing punishment of censure entry under Rule 14(2) read with Rule 4(b) of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordiate Ranks (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1991. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner without ascertaining, as to whether, the complaint made against the petitioner was supported by an affidavit or not as required in terms of the Government Orders dated 9.5.1997 and 1.8.1997. It is further submitted that no opportunity to defend himself was given to the petitioner during the preliminary enquiry, which formed the basis of the impugned show cause notice. It is also submitted that the show cause notice itself clearly reveals the mind of the disciplinary authority with regard to the imposition of punishment and, therefore, the direction rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oryx Fisheries Private Limited Vs. Union of India and others [(2010) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 234] is applicable in the present case. 4. Mr. Rahul Kapoor, learned State counsel has refuted submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner with the submission that as of now, only show cause notice has been issued to petitioner, which can very well be replied by him and the petition would not be maintainable since no Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ram Charitra Pandey, Shashank Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Gayatri Tripathi (S.I. Pno - 942460098) .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) jurisdictional error has been pointed out by the petitioner. He has also placed reliance upon a judgement rendered by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Deepak Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ-A No. 4054 of 2022) to submit that acceptance of complaint only with a supporting affidavit is not compulsory or mandatory. It is submitted that the said judgement has been affirmed in Special Appeal No. 390 of 2022 (Deepak Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others). 5. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material available on record, it is quite evident that petitioner has challenged the show cause notice with regard to imposition of proposed minor penalty. There is no jurisdictional error indicating by the petitioner with regard to the said show cause notice and all the objections seeking can very well be taken in reply to the show cause notice itself. 6. In the considered opinion of this Court, the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oryx Fisheries Private Limited (supra) would not be applicable in the present case, since the aforesaid case did not pertain to the imposition of any minor penalty as in the present case, and it is settled law that full-fledged enquiry proceedings are not required for the imposition of a minor penalty. It is also settled law that at the stage of issuance of show cause notice, the authority has to indicate the proposed punishment to which only a reply can be submitted. 7. In such circumstances, this Court does not find any occasion to grant indulgence to the petitioner, however, liberty is granted to petitioner to file a response to the impugned show cause notice whereafter final orders may be passed considering the reply which has been submitted by the petitioner. 8. With the aforesaid observation/direction, writ petition stands disposed of. (Manish Mathur,J.) September 1, 2025 AKK WRIA No. 9629 of 2025 2 Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench