Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:77487-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12236 of 2022 Petitioner :- Birendra Kumar Rai Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Namit Srivastava,Parul Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri,J. 1. This writ petition arises out of an order passed by the police authorities against the petitioner, against which order a claim petition filed before the State Public Service Tribunal has also been rejected. 2. It transpires that the petitioner was posted as a constable at Police Station- Mughalsarai, District- Chandauli. Proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on the charge that he had not promptly lodged the First Information Report, inasmuch as the incident of motorcycle theft was reported on 09.10.2014, whereas F.I.R. was lodged only on 12.10.2014. The authorities consequently issued notices to the petitioner which were replied by him and ultimately an order of censure entry has been passed against the petitioner. This order was affirmed in the appeal and revision. Thus aggrieved, petitioner filed Claim Petition No.1603 of 2019, which has also been dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was only a constable in the police station and the obligation to lodge the F.I.R. was that of the Station House Officer. Reliance is placed upon Section 154 and 154(1) of the Cr.P.C. as well as Paragraph 103 of the U.P. Police Regulations, to submit that it is the S.H.O. who was the person responsible for such work. 4. Learned counsel has also invited our attention to the statement of the In-charge S.H.O. before the Inquiry Officer, which reads as under: "इस पररिपप्रेक्ष्य मम ममुझप्रे यह कहनना हहै कक अपरि पमुललिस अधधीक्षक शधी लजिलिना लिनालि दनारिना जिनानबबूझकरि बगहैरि ककसधी जिनानकनारिधी कप्रे मप्रेरिप्रे कबरूद्ध ररिपपोरर पप्रेकषित करि दधी गयधी क्ययोंकक लजिस लिड़कप्रे नप्रे बनाइक ललियना थना वह मनाइनरि हहै 07 सनालि सप्रे कम सजिना कना दपोषिधी हहै। लजिसमम एफ०आई०आरि दजिर नहहीं हपोतना हहै बललक जिधी०डधी० मम तस्करिना डनालिना जिनातना हहै।" 5. Submission is that the petitioner cannot be held guilty for the delay in lodging of the F.I.R. and, therefore, orders passed by the authorities against the petitioner are wholly perverse. 6. Learned Standing Counsel although opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner but it remains undisputed that under Section 154(1), it is the S.H.O. who is responsible for lodging of the F.I.R. In this case, the In-charge S.H.O. was of the opinion that F.I.R. was not required to be lodged. The competent authority i.e. S.H.O. having taken such a view, it cannot be said that the petitioner, being constable, was responsible for the act of the S.H.O. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the authorities or by the Tribunal. 7. Even otherwise, we find that no reasons are recorded by the Disciplinary Authority as to why the petitioner's explanation in respect of the charges leveled against him has not been addressed. Merely stating that the explanation is not satisfactory would not be sufficient. 8. In that view of the matter, this petition succeeds and is allowed. 9. The order dated 06.06.2017 passed by Inspector General of Police, Varanasi Region, Varanasi, order dated 23.11.2017 passed by Additional Director General of Police, Varanasi Zone, Varanasi, order dated 20.09.2015 passed by Superintendent of Police, Chandauli, as well as order dated 10.03.2022 passed by the State Public Service Tribunal, U.P. Lucknow, are hereby quashed. Order Date :- 12.5.2025 K.Tiwari Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad