KALIKA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the three petitioners are Constables in Civil Police and are posted at Police Lines, Meerut. They are aggrieved by the respective orders of the disciplinary authority dated 14th Jan., 2015, whereby they have been awarded punishment of censure entry, and the orders of the appellate authority dated 29th Feb., 2016 rejecting their appeals against the order of punishment.

(2.) The petitioners were posted at Police Lines, Meerut. They were placed under suspension vide an order dated 06th Oct., 2014 passed by the third respondent. In the suspension order the allegation made against the petitioners was that they have physically assaulted one Mahesh Chandra Yadav, the brother of a contractor Dinesh Chandra. The petitioners were subjected to disciplinary proceedings. The suspension order was revoked on 27th Oct., 2014. From the record it transpires that a preliminary enquiry was conducted in the matter and a Circle Officer was nominated as Enquiry Officer to conduct the same. In the preliminary enquiry the Enquiry Officer has recorded the statement of seven police personnel, including several constables posted in the police station as mounted police, and the complainant. The petitioners were given liberty to cross-examine the witnesses. In the enquiry report the petitioners were found guilty of misbehaviour with the brother of contractor and for the negligence and indiscipline as reported in the newspapers 'Amar Ujala' and 'Dainik Jagran' in their edition dated 06th Oct., 2014.

(3.) The said enquiry report dated 24th Nov., 2014 was submitted to the disciplinary authority, the Senior Superintendent of Police, who issued a show cause notice on 04th Jan., 2015 to the petitioners. The disciplinary authority after considering the reply submitted by the petitioners to the show cause notice has awarded minor punishment of censure entry to the petitioners in terms of Rule 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short, the "Rules, 1991") vide orders dated 14th Jan., 2015. Aggrieved by the orders of the disciplinary authority, the petitioners filed their respective appeals before the appellate authority, which also came to be dismissed vide orders dated 29th Feb., 2016.