SANJAY DIWEDI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri R.N. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.

(2.) THE petitioner has filed the writ petition challenging the order of punishment awarded to him under Rule 14 (1) of the U.P. Police Subordinate (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 against which the petitioner appeal as well as revision has been dismissed. There is no allegation that the enquiry was not conducted in the manner prescribed and the petitioner was not given opportunity of oral evidence or to lead evidence in the said enquiry. However, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the material that was before the authority was not such that may merit the punishment that has been awarded. The petitioner, however, claims that the charge levelled against him has not been proved in the enquiry, yet he has been awarded minor punishment of reversion to the basic pay scale of the same grade for one year.

(3.) THIS Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not sitting in appeal against the order of punishment. The only thing to see is whether the enquiry was properly conducted and in the manner prescribed and whether the petitioner was given full opportunity to defend his case. There is also no allegation that the enquiry that was proceeded against the petitioner was conducted in the manner prescribed under the Rules. From the material available on record it does not in any way appear that the punishment awarded is either harsh or disproportionate to the charges.