HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 314 of 2025 Chief Justice's Court HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J. 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 01.09.2025, passed by learned Single Judge in Writ - A No. 9629 of 2025, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner aggrieved of the show cause notice dated 21.04.2025 proposing punishment of censure entry under Rule 14(2) read with Rule 4(b) of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Rank (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1991 ('Rules') has been dismissed. 2. The appellant was issued the show cause notice, based on a complaint made against the appellant, in relation to the performance of his duties. The challenge was laid, essentially on account of the fact that the complaint was not supported by affidavit of the complainant, which was in violation of Government Orders dated 09.05.1997 and 01.08.1997 and therefore, the show cause notice could not be issued. Further submissions were made that the notice itself indicated the punishment proposed to be imposed, which shows the pre-dereliction of the officer against the appellant and on that count, show cause notice was bad. 3. The submissions made were contested. 4. Learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that petitioner has failed to indicate any jurisdictional error in the issuance of the show cause notice and consequently, dismissed the writ petition. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ram Charitra Pandey, Prerana Yadav, Shashank Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., V.P. Nag (S.C.) Gayatri Tripathi PNO-942460098 .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. through Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 others .....Respondent(s) 5. Counsel for the appellant attempted to make submissions questioning the very justification of the issuance of the show cause notice in the circumstances indicated in the show cause notice, it was reiterated that as the complaint made was not supported by affidavit, no show cause notice could be issued to the appellant. 6. Submissions were made that the respondents are determined to impose punishment against the appellant and therefore an interference is required in the matter. 7. Learned Standing Counsel supported the order impugned. 8. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 9. A bare look at the show cause notice issued to the appellant reveals that the Authority has indicated the allegations calling upon the appellant to respond to the same. The very fact that a show cause notice has been issued under Rule 14(2) of the Rules, which pertains to minor penalty, the indication made therein regarding proposed punishment by itself cannot vitiate the notice. 10. So far as the challenge laid on the ground that the complaint was not supported by affidavit is concerned, it is always be open for the appellant to raise the said issue in reply to the show cause notice. The non-filing of affidavit, does not take away the jurisdiction of the Authority in issuing the show cause notice, the same can only be a valid consideration while arriving at a finding pertaining to the guilt of the employee concerned. 11. In view of the above fact circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned. 12. There is no substance in the appeal, the same is, therefore, dismissed. September 16, 2025 Mukesh Pal/Asheesh SPLA No. 314 of 2025 2 (Jaspreet Singh,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.) Digitally signed by :- MUKESH PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench