Supreme Court upholds censure against UP Police sub-inspector for failing to complete investigation on time

Recently, the Supreme Court upheld a censure imposed on a police sub-inspector in Uttar Pradesh for failing in his duties and completing assigned investigations within the stipulated time frame.

A show-cause notice was served on the appellant, who was posted as a Sub-Inspector at Hanumanganj Police Station, Khushinagar District, Uttar Pradesh, convicting the appellant of gross negligence, indifference and selfishness in the discharge of his duties. In his response to the show cause notice, the complainant stated that he spent most of his time managing VIP tasks and other external tasks assigned to him and therefore he was unable to complete the investigation of 13 cases pending before him.

However, as he was dissatisfied with the complainant’s explanation, a letter of no confidence was issued to him by the Superintendent of Police.

The applicant challenged the no-confidence penalty on the grounds that he was not given an opportunity to be heard before the Supreme Court imposed a censure penalty. He stressed that the impugned order and the consequent communication issued by the Khushinagar District Superintendent of Police are in clear violation of the provisions of the Act Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal), Rules, 1991. However, the plea is dismissed by both the Single Bench and the Division Bench of the High Court.

The appellant referred to Rule 5 read with Rule 14(2) of the Rules of Procedure 1991 and urged that no written notice was served on the appellant before the penalty of censure was imposed on him.

An appeal was then lodged with the Supreme Court.

Affirmation of the decision of the Supreme Court, consisting of: Judges PS Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta stated that the SP did not commit any error in imposing censure on the complainant.

The court rejected the applicant’s argument that he was not given the opportunity before the SP imposed the sentence. It was recorded that an order issued by the Additional DGP on the basis of which SP decided to punish the complainant was based on a statement made by the complainant.

“Apparently, the censure entry to be recorded through video letter dated March 7, 2022 was awarded by the Superintendent of Police, Khushinagar District. who was empowered to do so under Rule 7(2) of the 1991 Rules. The order dated November 16, 2021 was passed by the Additional Chief Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs (Police) after examining the entire material on record, including the detailed factual report of the Additional Director General of Police It also set out the complainant’s statement and the reasons for concluding that the complainant had shown no interest in completing the investigation, which was considered a sign of gross negligence, indifference and selfishness in the performance of his duties and was therefore highly reprehensible. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the censure entry was to be recorded by an officer who was not competent and that he is suffering from the vice of non-compliance with the rules/principles of natural justice is untenable.”, the judgment was written by Justice Sandeep Mehta said.

As a result, the appeal was dismissed and the judgment under appeal was confirmed.

Look:

For the plaintiff(s): Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv. Mr. Syed Mehdi Imam, AOR Ms. Akriti Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Priyam Kaushik, Adv. Mr. RS Yadav, Adv.

For the respondent(s): Mr. Anuvrat Sharma, AOR Ms. Alka Sinha, Adv.

Case Title: SUB-INSPECTOR SANJAY KUMAR VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS., CA No. 010894/2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 758

Click here to read/download the judgment