Supreme Court Upholds Censure for Negligent Sub-Inspector: Sanjay Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 27 September 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 745
Judges: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J., Sandeep Mehta, J.

Can a police officer be censured for negligence without being given a formal opportunity to explain their conduct? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a service law matter concerning a Sub-Inspector in Uttar Pradesh. The core issue revolved around whether a censure imposed on the appellant, a Sub-Inspector, for negligence in the discharge of his duties was valid, given that he was not issued a formal show cause notice before the imposition of the penalty. The bench comprised Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta, with the judgment authored by Justice Mehta.

Case Background

The appellant, Sub-Inspector Sanjay Kumar, was posted at Police Station Hanumanganj, District Kushinagar, Uttar Pradesh. He was censured for gross negligence, indifference, and selfishness in the discharge of his duties. This action was initiated following a review by the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh regarding the disposal of investigations in various districts. The Additional Chief Secretary, Home (Police), issued an order on 16th November 2021, condemning the appellant’s conduct. Subsequently, on 7th March 2022, the Superintendent of Police, District Kushinagar, issued a letter imposing a penalty of censure, which was to be recorded in the appellant’s service book.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellant initially filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, challenging the order of censure. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition on 23rd March 2022, upholding the censure. Subsequently, the appellant filed an intra-court writ appeal, which was also dismissed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court on 9th May 2022. Aggrieved by this, the appellant then approached the Supreme Court by way of a special leave petition.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. Specifically, the following rules are pertinent:

• Rule 4: This rule outlines the punishments that can be imposed on police officers. It distinguishes between major and minor penalties. Censure is categorized as a minor penalty under Rule 4(1)(b)(iv).
• Rule 5: This rule specifies the procedure for awarding punishments. It states that cases involving minor punishments should be dealt with according to the procedure laid down in Rule 14(2).
• Rule 7: This rule defines the powers of punishment, stating that the Superintendent of Police can award punishments mentioned in Rule 4(1)(a)(iii) and 4(1)(b) to Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors.
• Rule 14(2): This rule outlines the procedure for imposing minor penalties. It mandates that before imposing a minor penalty, the police officer must be informed in writing of the proposed action and the imputations against them. They must also be given a reasonable opportunity to make a representation against the proposal. The rule states:
  
  “Notwithstanding anything contained in sub -rule (1) punishments in cases referred to in sub -rule (2) of rule 5 may be imposed after informing the police officer in writing of the action proposed to be taken against him and of the imputations of act or o mission on which it is proposed to be taken and giving him a reasonable opportunity of making such representation as he may wish to make against the proposal.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the censure was imposed without affording him an opportunity to show cause, which is a violation of the principles of natural justice and the Rules, 1991.
• He contended that Rule 5 read with Rule 14(2) of the Rules, 1991, mandates a written notice before imposing a censure, which was not provided in his case.
• The appellant emphasized that the High Court did not consider his assertions properly and dismissed his writ petition based on oral instructions without a formal reply from the State.
• He pointed out that the State did not traverse the specific ground in the counter-affidavit filed in the Supreme Court, regarding the lack of opportunity to show cause.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The State argued that the censure was a result of a review by the Chief Minister regarding the law and order situation in the state.
• They submitted that the Circle Officer, Khadda, had issued a notice to the appellant on 25th September 2021, seeking his response on the pendency of investigations. The appellant had replied to this notice.
• The State contended that the appellant’s reply was found unsatisfactory, leading to a report by the Additional Deputy General of Police, which identified the appellant as a slack investigating officer.
• Based on this report, the Additional Chief Secretary, Home (Police), issued the order condemning the appellant’s conduct.
• The State argued that the Superintendent of Police, being the competent authority, issued the censure entry following due process, and there was no violation of natural justice.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether the direction to record the censure entry in the appellant’s service book suffers from the vice of non-adherence to the principles of natural justice and whether the said action is dehors the Rules, 1991.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991: The Court examined the provisions of these rules, particularly Rules 4, 5, 7, and 14, to determine the legality of the censure imposed on the appellant.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991: The Court interpreted and applied the rules to determine if the procedure for imposing censure was followed correctly. The Court held that the rules were followed, and the Superintendent of Police was competent to issue the censure.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the appellant was given an opportunity to explain his conduct through the notice issued by the Circle Officer. The Court emphasized that the Superintendent of Police, who was competent under Rule 7(2) of the Rules, 1991, issued the censure after considering the report of the Additional Chief Secretary. The Court also noted that the Additional Chief Secretary’s order was based on a detailed report that included the appellant’s explanation. The Court emphasized that the procedure was followed and there was no violation of natural justice.

Fact:Law

The Court’s reasoning was based on the factual aspects of the case, such as the notice issued by the Circle Officer and the report of the Additional Chief Secretary, as well as the legal aspects concerning the interpretation of the Rules, 1991.

The court considered the argument that the appellant was not given an opportunity to show cause. However, the court noted that the appellant was issued a notice by the Circle Officer, and his explanation was considered. The court also noted that the Superintendent of Police was the competent authority to issue the censure under Rule 7(2) of the Rules, 1991. The court held that there was no violation of natural justice or the Rules, 1991.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“Apparently thus, the censure entry directed to be recorded vide letter dated 7th March, 2022, was awarded by the Superintendent of Police, District Khushinagar, who was competent to do so as per Rule 7(2) of the Rules, 1991.”

“The order dated 16th November, 2021 was passed by the Additional Chief Secretary, Home (Police), after taking into consideration the entire material on record including the detailed factual report forwarded by the Additional Director General of Police which included the explanation of the appellant and assigned reasons for reaching the conclusion that the appellant did not show interest in the disposal of the investigations which was treated to be a sign of gross negligence, indifference and selfishness while performing duties and was thus highly condemnable.”

“Resultantly, we are of the view that the High Court committed no error whatsoever in rejecting the writ petition and writ appeal preferred by the appellant, assailing the censure entry.”

Key Takeaways

• A police officer can be censured for negligence if they are given a notice and an opportunity to explain their conduct, even if not a formal show cause notice.
• The Superintendent of Police is competent to issue a censure to a Sub-Inspector under the Uttar Pradesh Police Rules, 1991.
• The principles of natural justice are not violated if the concerned officer is given a notice and their explanation is considered before imposing a penalty.
• The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, emphasizing that the procedure was followed and the censure was valid.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that a censure can be imposed on a police officer for negligence if they are given a notice and an opportunity to explain their conduct, even if not a formal show cause notice. The court upheld the High Court’s decision, emphasizing that the procedure was followed and the censure was valid. This case clarifies the interpretation of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991, particularly concerning the procedure for imposing minor penalties like censure. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the case reinforces the importance of following the due process as per the rules.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the censure imposed on the appellant. The Court found that the procedure followed was in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Police Rules, 1991, and there was no violation of natural justice. The judgment reinforces the importance of police officers diligently performing their duties and the validity of censure as a penalty for negligence when due process is followed.