2025:UHC:5049-DB HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL JUSTICE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI AND JUSTICE SHRI SUBHASH UPADHYAY Writ Petition (S/B) No.221 Of 2020 June 17, 2025 Prem Pal Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & Ors. …Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- None present for the petitioner Mr. K.N. Joshi, Deputy A.G. for the State ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Justice Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari) 1. Petitioner is a Police Officer. A complaint was made against him that he demanded bribe for submitting report in favour of a person who had applied for firearm licence. Consequent to the said complaint, punishment of Censure was imposed upon him by S.S.P., Haridwar, vide order dated 03.08.2017. He challenged the said punishment by filing departmental appeal, which was dismissed by Deputy Inspector General of Police Garhwal Zone, vide order dated 15.03.2018. 2. Petitioner challenged the aforesaid two orders before Uttarakhand Public Service Tribunal by filing 1 2025:UHC:5049-DB Claim Petition No.01/NB/SB/2019. Learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition, filed by the petitioner, vide judgment dated 06.11.2019. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court challenging the judgment rendered by Tribunal. 3. Heard learned State Counsel and perused the record. 4. Learned Tribunal has considered and discussed all relevant aspects in detail. Petitioner contended before the Tribunal that Inquiry Officer had found petitioner ‘not guilty’, yet the Punishing Authority imposed the punishment of censure, which is unjustified. Learned Tribunal has dealt with the said aspect by holding that the finding relied by petitioner was recorded in preliminary inquiry and since the Punishing Authority was not satisfied with the report of the Officer, who conducted preliminary inquiry, therefore the Punishing Authority issued a show cause notice to petitioner and since the reply given by petitioner was found to be unsatisfactory, therefore, the Punishing Authority imposed the punishment of Censure. 5. Learned State Counsel submits that the disciplinary matters of subordinate police officers are governed by The Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. Rule 4 of said Rules lays down the punishment, which can be imposed upon subordinate police officers; 2 2025:UHC:5049-DB the same are categorized into major and minor penalties. He submits that Censure is a punishment provided for in Rule 4(b)(iv) of the said Rules, which is a minor penalty and the same can be imposed upon a Police Officer for good and sufficient reasons. 6. Learned State Counsel further submits that as per Rule 14(2) of said Rules, minor penalties can be imposed after informing the police officer in writing of the action proposed to be taken against him and after giving him a reasonable opportunity of making such representation as he wish to make against the proposed punishment. 7. He submits that reliance placed by the petitioner on the report submitted by the Officer, who held preliminary inquiry, is not relevant as it is not a case of major punishment where a detailed inquiry is needed. He submits that since the petitioner was given a show cause notice and his reply thereto was found to be not satisfactory, therefore, the Punishing Authority i.e. S.S.P. Haridwar imposed the penalty of Censure, which was well within his right. He submits that learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition as there was no infirmity or illegality, whatsoever, in the punishment imposed upon the petitioner due to misconduct committed by him. 8. We find substance in the said submission. The Punishing Authority has followed the procedure as laid down in the aforesaid Rules. Whether the 3 2025:UHC:5049-DB misconduct committed by the petitioner was sufficient for imposing the punishment of Censure or not could not have been gone into by the Tribunal while exercising power of judicial review. We do not find any scope for interference in the matter. Writ petition fails and is dismissed accordingly. (Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 17.06.2025 17.06.2025 Rajni 4 RAJINI GUSAIN Digitally signed by RAJINI GUSAIN DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=97cfa6e4cbd49c07b876db4844 8ac3701a9ae475a2547e4b7f1d9b1f17d 01342, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=8D039BC77BD1A2222B4 DF4FC80D4557562F95BEBA013F530616 A158A0A878BD8, cn=RAJINI GUSAIN Date: 2025.06.19 21:17:44 -07'00'