SHRIKANT PRASAD v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. HOME SECY. LKO. AND 4 OTHERS
WRIA/12110/2025 · 2025-10-16
Manish Mathur
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 202204 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 202204 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 12110 of 2025 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties. 2. Present petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed challenging show cause notice dated 03.09.2025 and enquiry report dated 06.06.2025 as well as enquiry report dated 11.06.2024. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that earlier petitioner was promoted on the post of Platoon Commander vider order dated 08.01.2022 whereafter a preliminary enquiry was instituted against petitioner with report dated 11.06.2024 being submitted. The allegation levelled against petitioner was that he obtained promotion concealing pendency of criminal case against him. 4. It is submitted that a perusal of impugned show cause notice will indicate that the same has been issued after three years of petitioner's promotion and clearly records the aspect that petitioner was required to show cause why he should not be reverted to the original post. It is submitted that the show cause notice clearly is not in nature of cancellation of promotion order but proposes reversion of petitioner which comes within term of a major penalty under Rule 4 of U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Rank (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1991[herein after referred to as the Rules of 1991] and for which procedure as indicated in Rule 14 read with Appendix-I of the Rules of 1991 is required to be followed. 5. Learned State Counsel has been provided written instructions dated 13.10.2025, a copy of which is taken on record. He has refuted the submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with submission that a perusal of the report dated 11.06.2024 clearly indicates the aspect that petitioner was given ample opportunity of Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sudhir Kumar Misra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Shrikant Prasad .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Home Secy. Lko. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s)
hearing and participation in the said proceedings. The preliminary enquiry report was thereafter challenged in WRIT - A No. - 3572 of 2025 which was dismissed vide order dated 04.04.2025 on ground that it was filed on the basis of apprehension. 6.
He has adverted to promotion order dated 08.01.2022 to submit that petitioner's promotion was with a condition that the same can be cancelled at any stage in case there is concealment of fact on part of petitioner and it is in terms of such an undertaking that impugned proceedings have been initiated. 7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident and admitted that petitioner was promoted vide order dated 08.01.2022. The proceedings have thereafter been initiated after two years of petitioner's promotion. The impugned show cause notice dated 03.09.2025 does not indicate any aspect that proceedings pertained to cancellation of petitioner's earlier promotion. On the contrary, the show cause notice clearly indicates that petitioner was required to show cause why he should not be reverted. The aspect of reversion clearly comes within purview of Rule 4 of the Rules of 1991 as a major penalty for which proceedings are required to be held in terms of Rule 14 read with Appendix-I of the Rules of 1991. 8. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, particularly the fact that admittedly no proceedings under Rule 14 read with Appendix-I of the Rules of 1991 have been undertaken by opposite parties and the impugned show cause notice has been passed only on the basis of preliminary enquiry, the impugned show cause notice dated 03.09.2025 is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari granting liberty to opposite parties to pass orders afresh after following the procedure as indicated in Rule 14 read with Appendix-I of the Rules of 1991. 9. In view of aforesaid directions, the writ petition is allowed at the admission stage itself. The parties to bear their own costs. October 16, 2025 kvg/- WRIA No. 12110 of 2025 2 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench