Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:66151-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5569 of 2025 Petitioner :- Saurabh Vikram Singh Inspector Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kailash Prakash Pandey 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 orders of punishment awarded to the petitioner, while he was posted as Inspector In-charge at Police Station Sihanigate, District Ghaziabad. He is awarded censure entry as he had failed to take appropriate measures, although information was received by him regarding sexual harassment to a minor girl and even the FIR was not registered, although the father of the victim informed about the incident. The incident occurred in the intervening night between 31.5.2022 and 1.6.2022. The FIR has been lodged only on 2.6.2022. The order impugned records that this has caused embarrassment to the police force in estimation of public. 2. Various submissions are advanced on behalf of petitioner. First and foremost, it is contended that the reply of petitioner has not been taken into consideration, according to which he had gone on sanctioned leave and was not present at the time of incident. The second submission is that order has been passed by an authority, who was not having jurisdiction to do so. 3. So far as the petitioner's plea of going on leave is concerned, the records show that his leave application was sanctioned on 2.6.2022 and as per the GD entry he has left the police station at 5.44 pm on 1.6.2022. 4. Sri Sharad Upadhyay, appearing for the State has invited our attention to page 49 of the order of tribunal, wherein the statement of petitioner has been recorded, as per which he was informed about the incident at about 12.30 itself, in the intervening night between 31.5.2022 and 1.6.2022. He was therefore clearly in office when the incident was intimated to him. The mere fact that subsequently he went on leave would not the change the circumstances. Once the incident was brought to the notice of the petitioner, he was required to have registered an FIR in terms of the law laid down in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of U.P. and others, reported in (2013) 14 SCR 713. It was not necessary for the petitioner to have waited for a report from the father. Material, therefore, did exist on record to impose minor punishment on the petitioner. 5. So far as the argument with regard to lack of jurisdiction of the concerned authority to pass the order is concerned, we find such plea to be absolutely devoid of any substance, inasmuch as Rule 7(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 confers jurisdiction upon the Superintendent of Police to award punishments mentioned in Sub- clause (iii) of Clause (a) and Clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 on Inspector and Sub-Inspector. Clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 includes minor punishment. We otherwise find that the order of Senior Superintendent of Police was passed after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The tribunal has also found the order to have been passed after complying with the principles of natural justice and is otherwise in accordance with rules. 6. Writ petition, accordingly, lacks merit and is dismissed. Order Date :- 29.4.2025 Anil Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad