Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court, on September 27, 2024, upheld the Allahabad High Court's decision not to intervene in the censure entry made in the service record of a Uttar Pradesh Police Sub-Inspector. The entry cited his gross negligence, indifference, and selfishness in his duties, and also failure to complete the assigned investigations within the specified time frame, following a 2021 review of law and an order by the Chief Minister.

A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta dismissed a petition filed by SI Sanjay Kumar as lacking in merit by finding no error in the decision of the high court on his writ petition and appeal.

The court found that his contention that the censure entry was directed to be recorded by an officer who was not competent and that the same suffered from the vice of non-adherence to the rules/principles of natural justice was naot tenable. 

The SI's counsel contended that no opportunity to show cause was ever afforded to him before imposing the penalty of censure. He urged that the order of November 16, 2021, and the consequent communication issued by the Superintendent of Police, District Khushinagar on March 7, 2022, were in clear breach of the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 and also suffered from the vice of non-adherence to the principles of natural justice.

On the other hand, the state counsel submitted that the Chief Minister sought information as to whether the investigations in accordance with law were being carried out and duly completed by the concerned police officials. 

As a consequence, the top officers sought a report. The Circle Officer Khadda, District Khushinagar issued a notice on September 25, 2021 to the SI seeking response on the issue of the long pendency of investigations assigned to him. The SI duly submitted his reply to the above notice sent by the Circle Officer. However, the reply offered by him was forwarded to the senior police officials and was found to be unsatisfactory. 

Based on these communications, the Additional Deputy General of Police prepared a report furnishing the individual details of three erring Investigating Officers from each district. The appellant SI was identified as one of the slack Investigating Officers in the District Khushinagar, Uttar Pradesh who had failed to complete the minimum number of investigations and his name was included in the detailed report, which was submitted to the Government. Based on this report, the Additional Chief Secretary, Home (Police) issued the impugned order.

Thereafter, the Superintendent of Police being the officer competent under the Rules, issued a communication of March 7, 2022, whereby an adverse entry was directed to be recorded in the appellant’s service book. 

Going through the rules, the bench noted that Rule 7(2) of the Rules, 1991, empowers the Superintendent of Police to award the punishments under sub-clause (iii) of clause (a) and clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 on Inspectors and Sub Inspectors. 

"Therefore, without any doubt, the Superintendent of Police was having the jurisdiction to award minor penalty of censure to the appellant who was, at the relevant point of time, posted as the Sub-Inspector of Police at Police Station Hanumanganj, District Khushinagar, Uttar Pradesh," the bench said.

The court held that the censure entry directed to be recorded, was awarded by the Superintendent of Police, District Khushinagar, who was competent to do so as per Rule 7(2) of the Rules, 1991. 

The order of November 16, 2021, was passed by the Additional Chief Secretary, Home (Police), after taking into consideration the entire material on record including the detailed factual report forwarded by the Additional Director General of Police, the court noted.

The report included the explanation of the appellant and assigned reasons for reaching the conclusion that the appellant did not show interest in the disposal of the investigations which was treated to be a sign of gross negligence, indifference and selfishness while performing duties and was thus highly condemnable, the court pointed out. 

Case Title: Sub Inspector Sanjay Kumar Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors