UP Police Rules | Agreeing With Inquiry Report Before Seeking Employee's Reply Doesn't Vitiate Disciplinary Proceedings: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that a disciplinary authority's expression of agreement with the findings of the inquiry officer, recorded in the show cause notice, does not vitiate the punishment order that follows. It held that such agreement is a pre-condition for issuing the show cause notice at all.It observed that the inquiry officer's recommendation of punishment is expressly contemplated by Appendix I of Rule 14(1) of the U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1991.Appendix I of Rule 14(1) of the 1991 Rules, as read by the Court, casts a duty on the inquiry officer to recommend the proposed punishment on the basis of the guilt of a member of the disciplined force, and requires that recommendation to be made separately.Justice Anish Kumar Gupta held,“the disciplinary authority has not shown any agreement with the punishment proposed against the petitioner but has shown his agreement with the findings record by the inquiry officer which otherwise also a pre condition for the disciplinary authority unless he is satisfied with the findings recorded against the petitioner are correct and based on the logical evidence available on record. Unless that agreement is recorded by the disciplinary authority he cannot proceed to issue show cause notice, therefore, that agreement recorded by the disciplinary authority was a basic parameter for issuing show cause notice against the petitioner and it is also a pre-requirement while issuing such show cause notice to propose the punishment which can be awarded against the petitioner.”Petitioner was posted as a Constable at the Reserve Police Lines, Deoria. Detailed as NCC guard, he left duty without informing the department. He was found drunk in police uniform near a country-made liquor shop at Machchali Hatta Bazar, and reported back only after an absence of 12 days, 4 hours and 15 minutes.A charge sheet dated 14th February 2011 was served on him the same day. He twice sought time to reply and filed none. He appeared before the inquiry officer and thereafter stayed away, leaving the witnesses uncross-examined. The inquiry was concluded ex parte and the charges held proved by report dated 31st December 2011. A show cause notice proposing dismissal was issued with a copy of the report, and further time to explain was granted at his own request, but no explanation came. He was dismissed by order dated 13th February 2012. His appeal and revision were rejected.Before the High Court, petitioner argued that he had not been given sufficient opportunity and that his reply to the show cause notice had not been considered by the disciplinary authority. He argued that the inquiry officer had recorded findings and also recommended the punishment, with which the disciplinary authority had already agreed, and that the punishment order was therefore vitiated. The Court observed that there was nothing wrong with the show cause notice, which went no further than recording that the charges had been found proved. It observed that the disciplinary authority agreed with those findings, and dismissal was accordingly proposed. Turning to the inquiry report, it held that the findings on guilt and the recommendation of punishment had in fact been recorded separately, as Appendix I requires.The Court observed that the copy of the reply annexed to the petition had nothing to show that it had ever reached the disciplinary authority.“…neither it bears any date nor any acknowledgment to demonstrate that it was ever submitted by the petitioner before the impugned order was passed by the disciplinary authority.”Since the show cause notice had gone unanswered, the Court held that the disciplinary authority was right to conclude that the petitioner had no explanation to offer, either against the findings or against the punishment proposed.Finding no illegality in the procedure adopted by the inquiry officer or by the disciplinary authority, the Court dismissed the writ petition.Case Title: Sant Ram Gautam Constable v. State Of U.P.Thru Secy And Ors.Click Here To Read/Download Order

UP Police Rules | Agreeing With Inquiry Report Before Seeking Employee's Reply Doesn't Vitiate Disciplinary Proceedings: Allahabad High Court

Upasna Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasna Agrawal

UP Police Rules | Agreeing With Inquiry Report Before Seeking Employee's Reply Doesn't Vitiate Disciplinary Proceedings: Allahabad High Court

Upasna Agrawal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasna Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers