HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 20545 of 2019 Court No. - 22 HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard Sri Nipendra Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against punishment order dated 19.12.2018 passed by Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur, whereby penalty of forfeiture of salary of ten days' was imposed on the petitioner under Rule 14(2) of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. The petitioner thereafter filed a statutory appeal, which was rejected vide order dated 13.03.2019. Subsequently, the revision filed by the petitioner against the said appellate order dated 13.03.2019 was also rejected by the Additional Director General of Police, Varanasi, vide order dated 06.06.2019. 3. The case of the petitioner is that a show cause notice dated 04.11.2018 was issued to him, inviting his reply mainly with respect to certain investigations conducted by him, wherein the investigations had been completed but the progress slips were not made available in time. The petitioner submitted his reply to the said show cause notice vide letter dated 01.12.2018, demonstrating the progress of the investigations conducted by him. In paragraph no.9 of the reply, he specifically stated that with respect to the investigations, the records of Case Crime No.1263 of 2017 under Sections 504, 506, and 406 I.P.C. were still pending in the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nagar, Jaunpur, whereas with respect to other criminal cases, Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Nripendra Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Lal Bahadur Singh Police No. 882080161 .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home And Confidential Lko.And Ors. .....Respondent(s) the prosecution papers had been forwarded on 02.08.2018 to be filed before the concerned Court. Therefore, the case of the petitioner is that the allegation of not providing the relevant progress slips/records pertaining to the investigations in the office of the Circle Officer is incorrect. 4. The punishment order dated 19.12.2018, after consideration of the petitioner's reply, concluded that no new facts or evidence had been produced to exonerate the petitioner from the charges. However, there is no discussion regarding the specific averment made in the reply about the availability of the documents/records pertaining to the investigations in the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police Nagar, Jaunpur, which had admittedly been sent by the petitioner and were kept there. The punishment order is a non-speaking order, having been passed without considering the specific averments made in the reply of the petitioner, hence the same is untenable in the eye of law and deserves to be quashed. 5. The appellate order dated 13.03.2019 as well as the revisional order dated 06.06.2019 merely repeat the findings recorded in the punishment order dated 19.12.2018. Therefore, the appellate order dated 13.03.2019 and the revisional order dated 06.06.2019 also deserve to be quashed. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Consequently, impugned orders dated 19.12.2018, 13.03.2019 and 06.06.2019 are hereby quashed. 7. Consequences to follow. 8. There shall be no order as to costs. October 9, 2025 Ashish Dewal WRIA No. 20545 of 2019 2 (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHISH DEWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench