In the case of Sub Inspector Sanjay Kumar vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., the Incomparable Court of India rejected an request challenging a censure punishment forced on a police officer for gross negligence and lack of interest within the transfer of examinations. The appealing party, Sub Reviewer Sanjay Kumar, contended that the censure was forced without taking after the standards of common equity. Be that as it may, the Court found that the pertinent strategies were appropriately taken after, and maintained the discipline.
Background
Sanjay Kumar, a Sub Reviewer at the Hanumanganj Police Station, Kushinagar, Uttar Pradesh, was subjected to disciplinary activity for his disappointment to total examinations inside a indicated time outline. Amid a review of the law and arrange circumstance within the state, the Uttar Pradesh government recognized a few police officers who had slacked behind in their obligations. Kumar was one of three officers in his area whose execution was hailed for examination.
Following a review, the Additional Chief Secretary, Home (Police), issued an order on 16th November 2021, condemning Kumar for gross negligence, indifference, and selfishness in his official duties. Kumar then approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the penalty violated the principles of natural justice, as he was not given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself before the censure was recorded.
Appellant’s Arguments
The legal representative for Kumar contended that the punishment was applied without following the procedure specified under the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (Rules, 1991). In particular, they argued that Rule 14(2) mandates that a police officer who is going to be subject to a minor penalty, like censure, be provided with written notice of the intended action along with a chance to defend their case. The appellant contended that the denial of this chance constituted a breach of natural justice standards.
Respondents' Defense
Kumar’s response to the notice was forwarded to senior officials but was deemed unsatisfactory. The Additional Chief Secretary, Home (Police), after considering the report submitted by the Additional Director General of Police, passed the impugned order condemning Kumar’s conduct. The Superintendent of Police, Kushinagar, being the competent authority under Rule 7 of the Rules, 1991, then ordered the censure entry to be recorded in Kumar’s service book.
Supreme Court’s Ruling
After hearing the contentions from both sides, the Incomparable Court found no justify within the appellant's disputes. The Court famous that beneath Run the show 4(1)(b) of the Rules, 1991, censure is classified as a minor punishment. Run the show 14(2), perused with Run the show 5(2), gives the method for imposing minor punishments, which needs the reprobate officer to be educated in composing of the proposed activity and given an opportunity to form a representation. The Court watched that Kumar had undoubtedly been served with a appear cause take note and had submitted a reaction, which was found to be unsuitable by the authorities
The Supreme Court concluded by dismissing the appeal and upholding the rulings of the Allahabad High Court, finding that the censure punishment was lawfully imposed and warranted. The appeal was denied without a cost order.
Click Here to: Download/View Related File
TAGS: censure penalty gross negligence Uttar Pradesh Police natural justice Supreme Court of India Sub Inspector Sanjay Kumar.
